Prove that God doesn't exist.

[numinus]

It's good to be skeptical, but I recognize that you are a learned person just as I am, it's just that we disagree on nearly every subject. Doesn't mean that you're right or that I am. You seem to me to have a very odd view of the world, I probably appear the same to you.

Odd? I have said NOTHING odd.

All this talk of theoritical physics was prompted by your insistence on scientific evidence. What you do not realize is that big bang cosmology CANNOT SAY ANYTHING about the universe less than 1 planck time after the big bang when it was less than 1 planck length in size and when no concieveable scientific law is in effect.

I know of only one thing within the human experience capable of existing in such a situation -- CREATIVE WILL.

I was reading last night about Loop Quantum Cosmology in which they claim to have meshed quantum theory and relativity into a cohesive theory/equation. Are you familiar with this?

A little. Not the details.

Quantized light called photons obey the rules of relativity because it propagates by a finite speed. Quantized gravity called gravitons, on the other hand, is a bit difficult to reconcile with relativity because gravity is supposed to be the curvature of space and acts instantaneously.

 

[numinus]

Wait a second, you're attacking me for talking about somebody else's theory? Doesn't that tend to dampen the conversation when there is some kind of theoretical "litmus" test before one can discuss things. I recall that continental drift was one of those verboten subjects when it was first proposed and people excoriated anyone who had the temerity to talk about it.

Eh?

I said that the energy from quantum foam is considered only in COSMOLOGICAL SCALES -- that is, you consider the universe as a 'soup' with entire galaxies as its individual particles. To invent a machine to harness such a thing and even patent it is plain CRAZINESS.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Eh?

I said that the energy from quantum foam is considered only in COSMOLOGICAL SCALES -- that is, you consider the universe as a 'soup' with entire galaxies as its individual particles. To invent a machine to harness such a thing and even patent it is plain CRAZINESS.

People who say that something cannot be done are almost always wrong.

 

[numinus]

People who say that something cannot be done are almost always wrong.

Eh?

Even now, you cannot even understand what your fantasy entails. Human beings cannot even travel the entire length of this galaxy and you propose to harness the energy of the quantum foam encompassing numerous galaxies????

And you say you have a patent for just such a machine??? And you say i'm odd????

Sell silly someplace else.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Eh?

Even now, you cannot even understand what your fantasy entails. Human beings cannot even travel the entire length of this galaxy and you propose to harness the energy of the quantum foam encompassing numerous galaxies????

And you say you have a patent for just such a machine??? And you say i'm odd????

Sell silly someplace else.

What is odd is that you apparently cannot read, I never said I had a patent on a zero-point energy machine, you made that up.

 

[numinus]

What is odd is that you apparently cannot read, I never said I had a patent on a zero-point energy machine, you made that up.

Ah yes. You never claimed the patent as your own. Some idiot was responsible for inventing that nonsense. You're just the idiot who actually believed it.

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Basically you are saying that the miraculous (an anomaly of the law of cause and effect as we know it) is incredible. Yet the big bang theory (the most accepted) says that the universe was created from nothing - a contradiction to the law of cause and effect. And the steady state theory (the second best) says that matter is continuously being created from nothing. The law of cause and effect is itself just an assumption based on our observations of the 12 billion year old universe that have all been made in the last few hundred years. It seems pretty arrogant of others to think that by observing the universe for a few hundred years we can understand cause and effect well enough to rule out that the creator of said universe can't bed the rules a little.


The testimonies were written down by eye witnesses in most cases. Within the lifetime of those were could object if they saw things differently. While most people could not read them, they were read publicly in front of large crowds and were often memorized. I think it may also be arrogant to assume an illiterate people to be gullible when they demonstrate themselves to be superior to us by regularly memorizing large portions of text so that they can discuss and debate it. And if they were so smart why didn't they just learn to read instead of taking the more difficult route of memorizing? Because paper was really expensive.

If I give credit to testomonies to the apostles .. then I give credit to sooth sayers , ghost hunters , U.F.O enthuisats and people who say we didn't land on the moon.

At least the big bang is "TESTABLE" evidence to prove its probablity...

Is it so hard to say that I want a religion that properly aligns with reality?!??!

 

[PLC1]

You might want to apply the same amount of skepticism you have on christianity on science. Man walking on water vs. curled dimension along mare's a$$? I'd take walking on water any day. At least my logic can live with the idea that it could very well have been an allegorical re-telling or maybe a highly elaborate illusion.

And yes, you are correct. The above is irrelevant to god's existence and to the moral lessons of jesus.

I'd go with the allegorical re-telling theory, myself.

As for scientific hypothesis, which, as you said, have nothing to do with god's existence one way or the other, they might or might not be correct. Scientists are continually reexamining hypothesis in the light of new facts and observations.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ah yes. You never claimed the patent as your own. Some idiot was responsible for inventing that nonsense. You're just the idiot who actually believed it.

The idiots at the US Patent office believed it too.

 

[numinus]

I'd go with the allegorical re-telling theory, myself.

And as allegories go, wouldn't you say that the message far outhweighs the telling?

As for scientific hypothesis, which, as you said, have nothing to do with god's existence one way or the other, they might or might not be correct. Scientists are continually reexamining hypothesis in the light of new facts and observations.

As for scientific hypotheses, I have read nothing that claims something coming from nothing in a cosmological scale. In that sense, science is irrelevant to the fundamental question of cosmology.

 

[numinus]

The idiots at the US Patent office believed it too.

Quit fooling yourself. Getting a patent for a stupid idea only means that you have sole claim to that particular stupid idea -- nothing more nor less.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

This entire thread represents the desperation of christian 'logic'.

They have to resort to exhortations such as 'prove god doesn't exist' a vacuous cure-all which can be applied to anything with equal valuelessness.

Pathetic

 

[numinus]

This entire thread represents the desperation of christian 'logic'.

What exactly is 'christian logic' if not a synthesis of western thought, eh?

The extent of your ignorance is astounding.

They have to resort to exhortations such as 'prove god doesn't exist' a vacuous cure-all which can be applied to anything with equal valuelessness.

Pathetic

Didn't you just say farewell to this forum. Not only don't you have the noodles to defend your opinions, you do not even have the courage of your own convictions.

Now that's pathetic.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

That might make you feel better but it isn't much of a rebuttal.

 

[numinus]

That might make you feel better but it isn't much of a rebuttal.

You mean to say you were expecting a serious rebuttal for your ignorant editorializing?

What nonsense.