What does it take to believe in jesus christ?

[Paphnutius]

[quote]Seems to be similar to the law of conservation of energy.
[/quote]

In a way it is, but it has slightly more connotations than that.


[quote]None of that. There's bunch of matter in common space and they will interact with eachother.
[/quote]

But how do you prupose that Matter A came into contact with Matter B in the first place?

[quote]1) universe was born from nothingness and (2) first cause was non-personal, non-intelligent and had no intent.
[/quote]

1) is still yet to be proven or justified.

2)and why do you say this? You may of presented that but you have not supported it, at least as far as I have read. If I have overlooked anything, mea culpa.

[quote]Before existance? Nothing. How could you answer to that in another way? If there is no existance then nothing exists.
[/quote]

So nothing existed before something existed. Fair enough. Now you do not believe in an infintie universe, so where do you get the universe then? Keep in mind that we believe God is transcendent of time and brought existence to be. God is Being not a being.

[quote]Yes, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle results in the total constant energy of the universe being in a state of uncertainty in quantumlevels. Virtual particles are a concrete manifestation of this. And I'm saying that the birth of the universe could be result of a similar uncertainty.
[/quote]

Except everything that I have read said that these virtual particles are simply theory and not directly observable. Is that your definition of concrete? Something that we cannot test,measure, or observe directly? I thought that would be non-concrete.

[quote]Try Casimir effect. They can be (atleast) indirectly observed.
[/quote]

Once again you are basing your arguement off of something that is not directly observable.

According to modern physics, a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves of all possible wavelengths which imbue it with a vast amount of energy, normally invisible to us. Casimir realized that between two plates, only those unseen electromagnetic waves whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy. As the gap between the plates is narrowed, fewer waves can contribute to the vacuum energy and so the energy density between the plates falls below the energy density of the surrounding space. The result is a tiny force trying to pull the plates together—a force that has been measured and thus provides proof of the existence of the quantum vacuum.

Taken from: [url="http://www.answers.com/topic/casimir-effect"]http://www.answers.com/topic/casimir-effect[/url]

So it proves a quantum vacuum because of the fluctiation in energy. How does that prove your claim about being coming into existence from non-being? That effect works through negative pressure creating a vacuum and pulling the plates together....and...? That proves that something may come from nothing? It states clearly that this was created by moving electromagentic waves through the plates and narrowing the space between them to cause a force to pull them together. It is interesting though that this may be used for space travel. Thank you for that enlightenment.

All that shows is that the pressure outside of the plates is greater than between the plates. Is that your concept of something from nothing, becuase the process seems pretty well described and labeled to me.

Edited April 16, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Paphnutius]

Just curious, are you going ot talk about van der Waals force next since they are somewhat related?

[url="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=fkatp5r80m5ge?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Van+der+Waals+force&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01a"]http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessi...22_1&sbid=lc01a[/url]

[Jaime]

Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt


But did someone order a cheeseburger?


Anyone? Its just going to get cold

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 15 2005, 09:14 PM'] Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt

But did someone order a cheeseburger?

Anyone? Its just going to get cold [/quote]
curses...foiled again!

[jezic]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 15 2005, 01:55 PM'] Atheism is a position on belief, Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. A weak atheist might disbelieve gods, but still hold that knowledge of gods is unknowable, or unknowable at this time. A strong atheist makes a positive claim against all gods, even gods they haven't heard of. Here is a blurb from infidels.org:

[i]Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.[/i] [/quote]
i didn't realize that the whole atheist thing was so complicated....

though, one simple question, is there any evidence that God doesn't exist?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='paphnutius']But how do you prupose that Matter A came into contact with Matter B in the first place?[/quote]

They are in contact because they are in the same space. They are close enough for the attraction to be of significance.

[quote]1) is still yet to be proven or justified.

2)and why do you say this? You may of presented that but you have not supported it, at least as far as I have read. If I have overlooked anything, mea culpa.[/quote]

I think the the first one remains a viable possibility. But I have in no way proven it.

I think I mentioned something about the second one in some post. Anyways, my point was that even if there is a first cause, then that doesn't have to be God.

[quote]So nothing existed before something existed. Fair enough.[/quote]

Of course, if even time didn't exist, then there would not have been even "before". In that sense that something would have always existed even though it would be of finite age.

[quote]Except everything that I have read said that these virtual particles are simply theory and not directly observable. Is that your definition of concrete?[/quote]

I'm not an expert on particlephysics. My understanding is that virtual particles are an important part of quantumphysics, which happens to be the most empirically confirmed scientific theory.

[quote]Once again you are basing your arguement off of something that is not directly observable.[/quote]

I'm not saying that's how it actually is. I don't know how the universe was born. You are the one saying it was God. I'm just saying there are other possibilities that seem viable.

[quote]That effect works through negative pressure creating a vacuum and pulling the plates together....and...?[/quote]

My understanding is that between the plates not every kind of virtual particles (or photons) can exist so there will be less particles. There are more virtual particles outside, resulting in a difference of pressure. And that without virtual particles there wouldn't be any Casimir effect.

But I'm not claiming that's how it is, since I'm not an expert on it. And I'm starting to feel this is besides the point, anyways. I'm just saying God isn't a necessity to explain the origin of the universe. We don't know how it was born so you assume a God.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='jezic'] i didn't realize that the whole atheist thing was so complicated....[/quote]

It's not. Some people just seem to make it so.

Either you believe or not. That's it.

[Paphnutius]

[quote]They are in contact because they are in the same space. They are close enough for the attraction to be of significance.
[/quote]

Then where did Matter A and B come from and how did they end up in the specific place?

[quote]I think the the first one remains a viable possibility. But I have in no way proven it.

I think I mentioned something about the second one in some post. Anyways, my point was that even if there is a first cause, then that doesn't have to be God.
[/quote]

I do not mean this in a mean way, but so are to trust your natural intuition about these things? If you have mentioned please call my attention to it. Also you are making claims without proof so they do not have a leg...Why does it not have to be God?

[quote]In that sense that something would have always existed even though it would be of finite age.
[/quote]

I understood the first part of that but the second lost me....

God is infinite, geometric definition of a line
<-------->
No beginning no end,

World is finite, geometeric definiton of a line segment
0--------0
Definite beginning and end,

Our souls are immortal, definition of a ray(nother thread).
0-------->
Definite beginning, no end

[quote]I'm not an expert on particlephysics. My understanding is that virtual particles are an important part of quantumphysics, which happens to be the most empirically confirmed scientific theory.[/quote]

Eh, nor am I. Simply because something is the most confirmed theory does not make it correct. I call your attention to what scientist used to call ether. There are still a lot of wholes to be filled in on that theory.

It basically goes that a photon is created from a surge of energy that cannot be detected due to uncertainity. If this is your basis for the creation of the universe...

1) the energy is not detectable because of uncertainty, not becasue it is nothingness

2)they only last for minute seconds, not even noticable by reality many scientiests say. So how can things that only last for such a brief time (we are talking like realllllllly small) create a universe with sentient beings? Something doesnt mesh.

3) They are not directly obserable, only their effects are. How can we know that is what is happening? Sounds like educated guess work. That is kinda what science is. We see X and Y happening in response to something Z. So let us call Z, A and make it a law. It is nothing more than making observations about the world and cannot make claims about the spiritual realm. Hmm...that leads us to the mind/body problem. ugh....

[quote]I'm not saying that's how it actually is. I don't know how the universe was born. You are the one saying it was God. I'm just saying there are other possibilities that seem viable.
[/quote]

And I am saying that there is no other viable possibilty. The best that has been shown is that some photons seem to come from a surge of energy supposedly out of nowhere that do not last but for a fleeting amount of time and nothing else. They are not directly observable and are at best a scientific [i]theory[/i]. Mind you how many times science has been wrong in the past. Plato's day believed that wasps came form horses. Science for you. Once again if they last so briefly how can a universe come from that? How can cognition and morality? Can being come from non-being? That is what you are saying. That a bunch of [i]nothingness[/i] got together and made [b]something[/b], and this [b]something[/b] eventually led to you and me. Well then...

You may have your virtual particles and fleeting energy surges, and I will take my loving and merciful God. Familiar with Paschal?

[quote]My understanding is that between the plates not every kind of virtual particles (or photons) can exist so there will be less particles. There are more virtual particles outside, resulting in a difference of pressure. And that without virtual particles there wouldn't be any Casimir effect.[/quote]

Once again how does that prove something from nothing?
Remember your original claim was that not everything needs to have a cause. You have not proven that thus far. Like I said, if you can prove that something can postively come from nothing, that being can come from non-being, you will be rich beyoned your dreams for a variety of different reasons.

[quote]But I'm not claiming that's how it is, since I'm not an expert on it. And I'm starting to feel this is besides the point, anyways. I'm just saying God isn't a necessity to explain the origin of the universe. We don't know how it was born so you assume a God. [/quote]

I do not assume God, creation points towards God. You have tried to say that something may come from nothing and have not shown anything beyond indirectly, unobservable, energy surges to try to disprove an omniscient, omnipotent God. The reason why this matters is becasue the second way depends on causality. You denied causality and have nothing to prove it. Mind you if you say that there is no such thing as cause and effect then we can know nothing for there would be no relationship between action and reaction but randomness.

Edited April 16, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Paphnutius]

Quick recap of your points:

1)You deny an infinity
2)You have not proven that something may come nothing
3)God does not exist for He is not a viable answer to creation.
4)Something else, that is finite, is responsible for existence and which is more viable than God.
5)What is your conclusion?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Paphnutius']Then where did Matter A and B come from and how did they end up in the specific place?[/quote]

The same place the universe came, I suppose.

[quote]If you have mentioned please call my attention to it.[/quote]

I just said: " Anyways, birth of something (from nothing or elseway) does not necessarily require intelligence or intent." . Perhaps not so clearly, but that is what I meant.

[quote]Also you are making claims without proof so they do not have a leg[/quote]

Yeah, I don't have proof. Otherwise I would know how the universe was born.


[quote]I understood the first part of that but the second lost me....[/quote]

If time had a beginning only things of finite age could exist. Also, "always existed" means as long as there has been time.

[quote] Mind you how many times science has been wrong in the past.[/quote]

Not so much wrong as incomplete.

[quote]That a bunch of nothingness got together and made something, and this something eventually led to you and me.[/quote]

Forget it. I can't really argue for a specific theory.

[quote]And I am saying that there is no other viable possibilty.[/quote]

Fine. I disagree on that. I guess God's existance is a possibility, but it's too improbable option.

[quote]Familiar with Paschal?[/quote]

Pascal's Wager? Sure. I don't buy it. Besides it's not a argument for the existance of God.

[Semalsia]

Anyways, even if you did prove the existance of some sort of deistic God, you couldn't prove catholicism.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Apr 16 2005, 02:10 AM'] Anyways, even if you did prove the existance of some sort of deistic God, you couldn't prove catholicism. [/quote]
We could, but let's take it one step at a time.

[Paphnutius]

[quote]The same place the universe came, I suppose.
[/quote]

Which you have yet to offer a plausable explination. You are still at square one.

[quote]" Anyways, birth of something (from nothing or elseway) does not necessarily require intelligence or intent." . Perhaps not so clearly, but that is what I meant.
[/quote]

And by applying the law of conservation:Nemo dat quod non habet, nothing gives what it does not have, I say there must be an intellegent desginer. Not exatly the clearest application, but it get us there...

[quote]Yeah, I don't have proof. Otherwise I would know how the universe was born.
[/quote]

But your proof doesnt even back up your claim about something from nothing.

[quote]If time had a beginning only things of finite age could exist. Also, "always existed" means as long as there has been time.
[/quote]

Unless of course God, as Being, transcends time, which, oh wait....He does.

[quote]Not so much wrong as incomplete[/quote]

Not not really, when they thought that wasps came from horses that wasnt incomplete, but simply wrong.

[quote]Forget it. I can't really argue for a specific theory.
[/quote]

So then you admit that you do not have a viable theory of the existence of the universe apart from an intellegent desginer and uncause causer? Seems like God is the only explination for that...

[quote]Fine. I disagree on that. [i]I guess God's existance is a possibility[/i], but it's too improbable option.
[/quote]
Emphasis mine:

Once again we return to why you think that it is not a possbility.... You said becasue there are other ones, but I still see nothing that is anywhere convincing.

Once you admit that God is a possiblity then you may move to see exactly why He is the only possibility.

[quote]Pascal's Wager? Sure. I don't buy it. Besides it's not a argument for the existance of God. [/quote]

You are right, it is not an arguement, but ought to make you think...

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Apr 16 2005, 01:18 AM'] We could, but let's take it one step at a time. [/quote]
Like Raphael said, give us time. Once you accept God as the uncaused cuaser, simply that, we may move and build coherence truths surronding that and come to why God must be: omnipotent, simple, infinite, etc... Then we can talk about God and why He created, and salvation history, then Christ, the Catholicism. As you can see, you and I are preeeety far down the line.

One step at a time

[jasJis]

Semalsia,
I read your 'analysis'. What a joke. You have chosen to believe a certain way, and bend your thought process to conform. You are viewing reality with blinders. You 'CHOOSE' to not accept the possibility of God and end it there. Fine, that's your choice. But superficial opinion is not thoughtful analysis. If you are going to dismiss the basic physics, at least read somebody's 6th grade science book and re-read the section about energy and motion.