Do you believe in gravity?

[Dawkinsrocks]

I see that numinus is still engineering arguments that lack coherence.

That is the trouble with cutting and pasting stuff you don't understand eh numinus?

Christians who make arguments like this one ie that the laws of the universe are only probabilities therefore god certainly exists are pretty desperate aren't they.

Another desperate example is 'cause and effect cannot regress infinitely so therefore god'

Everyone believes in gravity.

An ever decreasing % of people believe in god, now that you don't get killed for admitting it.

 

[numinus]

One does not have to have empirical proof to "believe", you are the one trying to make your belief empirical. I know better, I believe what I believe and don't feel the need to try and prove it because I know it can't be done. Nor do I need to make other people live by my rules.

This is an outright lie.

Did you or did you not say that no less than an interview with god would prove his existence? To which, you had the cheek to add that, indeed, you have personally interviewed all 5 billion of the planet's human inhabitants?

The only thing worse than a bonehead is a lying bonehead.

Our personal relationships with our Creator are what we make them, there's no proof except what you find in your own heart.

Now you are talking about the god of religion when all along, I have been talking about of ontology.

No proof is required for the first, since religion, as I have said, is a right of thought. Proof is required for the second.

 

[numinus]

I got a PhD in physics back before string theory was around. As I said, you don't need any kind of exotic string theory to get vacuum energy which has an important bearing on the big picture.

LOL

Good for you.

We have another strong disconnect. What I said about spontaneous creation and annihilation can't come from anywhere except Heisenburg's uncertainty and it was discovered long before string theory came about. Yet, you call me dishonest, and then say pretty much the same thing that I just said.

I was talking about COSMOLOGY.

When you say that there is 'experimental foundation' for spontaneous creation and annihilation of matter, you make it appear that it could happen in cosmological scales -- enough to explain an accelerating universe.

That simply isn't the case.

What do you mean What???

Well yes, and....

Analogy? My analogy? Or Hawking's?

IF the total energy in the universe is zero, that means that the sum of the energy from gravity is equal to that of lambda. Since the first is a contracting tendency of space-time while the latter is a tensile/expanding tendency, you have a universe that is in a steady-state -- which this universe is NOT.

Conservation is violated? Just because something is accelerating doesn't mean conservation is violated. That often means that potential energy is being traded for kinetic energy.

Of course conservation is violated.

We already know that the amount of gravitational energy is constant because the amount of matter is fixed. We already know that the gravitational energy contracts space-time on itself.

Without an opposite tendency to counter this, the universe couldn't have expanded within the last 13 billion years to what it is today. That is why I said that a spherical space-time geometry is unstable. The universe would quickly contract to the singularity from which it came.

And even if the inflationary stage of the nascent universe somehow imparted it with a constant rate of expansion, we would observe either the universe contracting at an accelerated rate or expanding at a decelerated rate.

For space-time to expand at an accelerating rate, you need an increasing amount of whatever is countering gravity in the first place -- presumably, lambda.

Note that this analogy is exactly like a mass moving within a gravitational field. And while the mechanism to convert potential to kinetic energy is there, there is NO such equivalent mechanism by which to convert gravitational energy to lambda. What we do know is hubble's separation -- that the speed by which two celestial objects are moving away from each other is proportional to the distance between them -- meaning, the energy of lambda is dependent on the amount of vacuum.

I have read an ingenius theory regarding this, but you need to postulate the variance of c -- that the speed of light is changing. That is not what you are talking about, are you?

Ontology? I haven't heard of that theory of the universe.

It is a branch of philosophy.

 

[numinus]

I see that numinus is still engineering arguments that lack coherence.

That is the trouble with cutting and pasting stuff you don't understand eh numinus?

Christians who make arguments like this one ie that the laws of the universe are only probabilities therefore god certainly exists are pretty desperate aren't they.

Another desperate example is 'cause and effect cannot regress infinitely so therefore god'

Everyone believes in gravity.

An ever decreasing % of people believe in god, now that you don't get killed for admitting it.

Only a bonehead would talk about christians in a thread about gravity.

Duh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is an outright lie.

Did you or did you not say that no less than an interview with god would prove his existence? To which, you had the cheek to add that, indeed, you have personally interviewed all 5 billion of the planet's human inhabitants?

The only thing worse than a bonehead is a lying bonehead.



Now you are talking about the god of religion when all along, I have been talking about of ontology.

No proof is required for the first, since religion, as I have said, is a right of thought. Proof is required for the second.

And you have not presented any proof. Semantic confections are not proof.

I don't recall saying that only an interview with God would prove Its existence, nor do I think that I would have said that since it's obviously not true--His appearance would be enough, no need for an interview.

Yes, I commented about having interviewed all the people on Earth, but you still got it wrong because there are more than 6 billion people and I know that. I try not to let your retarded sense of humor drag down the thread.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Only a bonehead would talk about christians in a thread about gravity.

Duh?

Christians have every bit as much gravity as you do, Nums, don't be going elitist on us.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hey Numinus, you wouldn't be being disingenuous would you?

We all know that the subtext of your thread goes like this.

Gravity cannot be proven to be a 100% reliable theory as it is a probability but everyone believes it. God's existence is a probability so therefore you should believe in him too'.

The only problem is that one is at the end of the scale which is as close as you can get to certain and the other is right at the very opposite end.

Also, we have all seen millions of examples supporting the theory of gravity but no counter-examples and with god we see no supporting examples and plenty of counter-examples.

You could always try addressing my point instead of hiding behind insults.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh and BTW Num your argument is counter productive.

Stating that you cannot be certain of something as richly supported by evidence as gravity actually implies that you can be even less certain of god's existence when there is none.

 

[numinus]

And you have not presented any proof. Semantic confections are not proof.

And if the proof presented is defective, then it would be a simple matter to point out its defect, no?

Something that you have, after all the nonsense you have posted, NEVER DONE.

I don't recall saying that only an interview with God would prove Its existence, nor do I think that I would have said that since it's obviously not true--His appearance would be enough, no need for an interview.

Which is, by any standard, empirical. So, you admit that you LIED. It wouldn't be the first, btw.

Yes, I commented about having interviewed all the people on Earth, but you still got it wrong because there are more than 6 billion people and I know that. I try not to let your retarded sense of humor drag down the thread.

Oh, I'm sorry I got your LIE wrong.

 

[numinus]

Hey Numinus, you wouldn't be being disingenuous would you?

We all know that the subtext of your thread goes like this.

Gravity cannot be proven to be a 100% reliable theory as it is a probability but everyone believes it. God's existence is a probability so therefore you should believe in him too'.

The only problem is that one is at the end of the scale which is as close as you can get to certain and the other is right at the very opposite end.

Also, we have all seen millions of examples supporting the theory of gravity but no counter-examples and with god we see no supporting examples and plenty of counter-examples.

You could always try addressing my point instead of hiding behind insults.

Uhm, nope.

I started my post on this thread merely to say that the thread-starter was entirely within reason in asking the question. You've never gone far with any of your arguments. What makes you think you can go any further with this straw man, eh?

Duh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It represents the same kind of delusional 'logic' that you deploy elsewhere so it is reasonable to make the connection.

You make assertions like there cannot be infinte regress of cause and effect so therefore god which is an equally specious argument of a very similar nature.

 

[numinus]

Oh and BTW Num your argument is counter productive.

Stating that you cannot be certain of something as richly supported by evidence as gravity actually implies that you can be even less certain of god's existence when there is none.

If a member who claims to have a phd in physics cannot say what gravity is, what makes you think we'd actually believe what a bonehead thinks it is, hmmm?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hmm, boring and irrelevant

 

[numinus]

It represents the same kind of delusional 'logic' that you deploy elsewhere so it is reasonable to make the connection.

You make assertions like there cannot be infinte regress of cause and effect so therefore god which is an equally specious argument of a very similar nature.

Yeah right.

I'm the one talking about christians in a thread about gravity.

What a bonehead!

 

[numinus]

Hmm, boring and irrelevant

The relevance is simple. Boneheads need not post here.