I believe one can be fanatical about any number of things, religion just being one of them; one could be fanatical about a baseball team for example.
|
I believe one can be fanatical about any number of things, religion just being one of them; one could be fanatical about a baseball team for example.
Or about politics ;)
That's a biggee. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I recall y'all and Dwashbur were going to start another thread. Maybe we should do it in Member Discussions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Dwashbur and someone else were going to. I was just cheering them on.Quote:
Originally Posted by southamerica
The late great Walter Martin used to talk about three different kinds of apologetics.
First, there's the upper-stratum intellectual type, which almost nobody takes seriously because they don't understand the vocabulary.
Second, there's pop apologetics. This is where well-informed people take the stuff from the upper deck and bring it down to a vocabulary level that regular people can grasp. He used to describe it as "Get the hay down out of the loft onto the barn floor, where the cows can get at it."
Third, there's slop apologetics. That's where somebody gloms onto a little of this and a little of that, thinks he knows something, goes charging into a discussion and gets creamed.
I think we know what brand sawsall is practicing. I would just ask everybody not to judge all of us by him.
I'm not going to bother being gentle. You don't deserve it. How would you like it if I said to you that what you believe is all lies and that you are a sinner because of it. You wouldn't like it, would you? So what do you think gives you ANY right to say the same thing to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by sawsall02
I have given you the courtesy of accepting that you believe what you do. I have not challenged your beliefs. I've simply stated that I don't share those beliefs. I have expressed that I am glad for you that you find comfort in your faith. But I DEMAND the same courtesy, at least on this site.
I don't "have" to repent anything. I don't "have" to do anything. I am completely comfortable with my beliefs and that I lead a good, moral and ethical life. Can you say the same?
My apologies if have offended anyone. Please forgive me. I need to start over, and make thing's a little more clear. First, we need to prove that everything in the universe CANNOT come from NOTHINGNESS. I know I have said, look at the "Laws of Physics", but what I meant to say was look at the "Laws of Thermaldynamics". Please look at this:http://www.doesgodexist.org/JulAug06/TheLawsofThermodynamics.html
Hello again,
This is a better site to teach about the "Laws of Thermaldynamics", however it is a little lengthy. But for those of you who are interested:http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106
Hi Sawsall,Quote:
Originally Posted by sawsall02
I have looked at both arguments and there is a similar theme. That is, the universe is a closed system because it had a beginning in time. Without any 'input' the universe will 'run down' In other words, it will suffer a heat death because of increasing entropy.
Leaving other objections aside, the major problem from my point of view is that the theory depends on the universe having a beginning. i.e The Big Bang. If The Big Bang theory is incorrect and the universe has always existed ( no beginning in time) then the idea of the second law of thermodynamics operating in a closed system is no longer relevant.
Science does not know if The Big Bang theory is correct. At the moment there are a number of competing theories so it is impossible to draw any conclusions as presented in the links provided.
Tut
And the answer is- GOD. There had to be an outside supernatural force that could alter these laws. An open system. We cannot explain any other way around this. These laws have always been in place, never changing. I know I get passionate about my faith, but if you're an Evolutionist, trying to explain the unexplainable, doesn't this take faith as well? This is why I think Creation, and Evolution are a Religion.
But what if there never WAS nothingness?
Nothing can be created from nothing. Energy to matter or matter to energy--SOMETHING has always existed.
So... your theory is COMPLETELY based on the idea that God created something out of nothing.
I say that there was never "nothing". There was ALWAYS "something".
That "something" to YOU is a god. It isn't to ME. Therefore, all of your arguments do not work on me, because MY something could have been a bunch of ping pong balls bouncing around in multiple universes, for all I know. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't a god that gave of himself to create EVERYTHING.
I guess that if you go with THAT idea, the whole thing could have been created when some god sneezed.
But the laws that you quote do NOT prove that YOUR god exists.
Hi Synnen,
Correct! A supernatural force "God", had to have alway's been in existence. Now that I have proven this, now I can prove the God of the Bible, is the one, and only true God.
Nope--WRONG!
SOMETHING has always existed.
That something doesn't have to be a god.
It could have simply been all of the rocks and energy in the universe, forever and ever. No supernatural being need be involved at all.
Synn,
REALLY? All the rocks and energy forever. Wow! How utterly lucky for us. Out that came ALL of this order? The sun is right were it should be, so is the moon not to mention... intelligent life, DNA.. ect. etc. Oh well to each his own but I don't have enough FAITH to believe that... ;)
Carry on.. I don't have anything to offer really on the topic. Believing in God is about faith not proof. I can't prove anything.
I'm not saying I necessarily BELIEVE that it was rocks and energy
Just that the laws of thermodynamics don't PROVE that a god exists.
Synnen this is for you, but if anyone else wants to check it out go ahead. This website I just found is amazing, it's quite a long read but makes my point to a "T". Also this has been difficult for me since I've never had typing.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm
Thanks.
Hi Sawall,Quote:
Originally Posted by sawsall02
You were asking about the laws of thermodynamics and the argument stands on its own. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. If the second laws of thermodynamics are accurate ( which it is) then there must have been a time when the universe existed in a highly ordered state (zero entropy). It is not unreasonable to put forward the possibility that someone was responsible for this order in the beginning.
The assumption is of course,there was a beginning. We don't know if there was a beginning as generally understood (Big Bang). As I said there are a number of competing theories at the moment. Even if thermodynamics, evolution are related we don't know how.The conclusions drawn as per the links are speculation.
Tut
No, sawsall, that's not proof. In fact, it barely touches on "proof" before the site is off and running in an attempt to convert the reader. Christians cannot prove God exists. It is a matter of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawsall02
Face it, Sawsall.
You CAN NOT PROVE that God exists. Every single "proof" I have EVER heard for the existence of god could substitute pingpong balls instead of god and would still work for logic--but not for proof of god.
You cannot prove something that you have to take on faith.
But they would have to be INTELLIGENT ping-pong balls! :D (I think that describes every one I've ever tried to play with, because they always manage to avoid getting hit by me. But anyway... )Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
One thing I haven't seen come up on either side of this is the question of time. The universe we know is subject to a linear time frame. But if it had a beginning, then that suggest there's something or somebody or whatever that is outside of time. Saying that God or anything else is "eternal" assumes that time is a universal. I'm not sure that's the case. So if time is something that appeared with the appearance of this universe, then whatever is outside of it could, and probably would, be subject to a whole different set of "rules." Synnen, what are your thoughts on that?
And just in case you think we are attacking your beliefs, we aren't. Because just like you can't prove God exists, we can't prove God doesn't exist. Any person's belief in the God of Christians, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Odin or whatever is based on a matter of faith in the teachings of their religions. You are free to choose what you want to believe in. Just as we are free to choose what we want to believe in. I have no intention of interfering with your right to believe what you want. Its when you insist on trying to impose your beliefs on others that I draw the line. I think my last post may have gotten through to you a little, but not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I think we only assume that time is linear, because that is how we live it.
I think there is a good possibility that time is circular, but on a circle so immense that we cannot comprehend it. That would take care of the "beginning" thing.
I also think there's a good possibility that we don't understand time at all yet. Our thoughts on it are pretty primitive, honestly. I don't think we've reached a scientific or mental place yet where we can comprehend time as more than linear.
So... who knows? Perhaps there are entire civilizations on some distant planet who live time backward from death to birth or who are able to jump around in time to change things--and that understand time well enough to avoid paradox.
I certainly can't wrap my brain around it.
But "There are more things on heaven and earth..."
I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't KNOW anything. I don't KNOW that there's a Goddess, or that I'll be reborn, or that Karma works, or that my next life will take me one step closer to being perfect.
What I do have is faith and belief. I BELIEVE that there is a benevolent and just goddess, and that She will punish as she sees fit. I BELIEVE that what you put out comes back to you sevenfold. I BELIEVE that karma works, and that I will learn in my next life the lessons that escaped me in this life.
I BELIEVE that with my whole heart, and have faith that what I do not understand will come to me when I have lived enough lives to have learned the lessons that will help me better understand the order of the universe and my place in it.
I BELIEVE it, and I have FAITH in it.
I cannot PROVE it, and wouldn't even try.
I think that people who try to prove it to others are desperate to prove their beliefs to themselves, honestly--and I feel sad for them that they do not have enough faith to know that proving it won't help ANYONE.
If you want to discover what a famous writer did with this concept and find out how complicated it can be, read Bearing an Hourglass by Piers Anthony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
And with the current discussion, there's the problem of dimensions.
Thank You!
I have heard enough of this hog-wash! I can put proof right in front of you and you can't see it!
Good Bye!
I'm a lifelong Christian, preacher's kid, former parochial school teacher, adult Bible class leader, Sunday School teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawsall02
You have not put any proof in front of us. Your reasoning and those sites' reasoning is circular and prove nothing about the existence of God.
No one can prove God exists. It's a matter of faith.
Don't forget to pick up your toys...Quote:
Originally Posted by sawsall02
Me, I'm going back to washing my hogs...
Sawsall,
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6
It is all a matter of faith. Good GRIEF, God in the flesh was HERE! He healed, and raised the dead, turned water into wine and he himself rose the third day after he was crucified. If people who saw him didn't believe with their own eyes, how do you think you can prove him to exist. It is ALL faith. And you can't come to him otherwise.
As far as we know, that's how it functions everywhere. I emphasize "as far as we know." But scientifically speaking, we're pretty well stuck with the idea of starting with what we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Could you develop this a little for me? I'm not sure I follow, because even if it's circular in the way I *think* I understand you to mean it, it still pretty well plays out in a linear fashion, at least for us. But it's clear to me that there's something here I'm not grasping.Quote:
I think there is a good possibility that time is circular, but on a circle so immense that we cannot comprehend it. That would take care of the "beginning" thing.
Good point. But again, scientifically, all we know is all we know, so we more or less have to start there.Quote:
I also think there's a good possibility that we don't understand time at all yet. Our thoughts on it are pretty primitive, honestly. I don't think we've reached a scientific or mental place yet where we can comprehend time as more than linear.
When I refer to being "outside of time" the best example I can think of is from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. When Captain Sysko went into the worm hole he encountered the beings that the Bajorans called "the prophets." These beings existed outside of time and had no concept of a linear existence; to them, all events were simultaneous because time as we know it wasn't part of their universe. This sort of how I tentatively see God existing, i.e. on a plane so different from our own that there's no good way we can comprehend it. But he's not subject to time, and therefore needs no "beginning." I hope that makes a modicum of sense.
I don't know about the first part, but the second part sounds a lot like Doctor Who! I like it! :)Quote:
So... who knows? Perhaps there are entire civilizations on some distant planet who live time backward from death to birth or who are able to jump around in time to change things--and that understand time well enough to avoid paradox.
Agreed. But for me, the fact that I can't wrap my brain around it is a good thing, because IMAO (In My Arrogant Opinion) any "God" worthy of the name would, by definition, have to be way beyond my comprehension. If he/she/it were fully comprehensible by my finite mind, I don't see how he/she/it could be a genuine deity. But that's just me.Quote:
I certainly can't wrap my brain around it.
But "There are more things on heaven and earth..."
Dwashbur---start that thread, and let me know where it is.
I'd be happy to expound as best I can on that--but it's hard for me to explain something I don't really understand myself. I think you understand what I mean by that.
Even people who believe as you do are telling you that what you have offered proves nothing. They are telling you its all based on Faith. Faith is a very powerful thing. Many people have it and find great comfort in it. Others prefer more tangible evidence. Until you accept that the belief in God, in ANY god, is based on faith you will continue to be frustrated by people who don't have that same faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawsall02
Okay. It may be a little while, some things just turned to crap in my life in the past few minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I found this.This may help the debate. It is pretty much what I have been saying all along.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
As far as I can see not many people believe the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. What is being confused here is the claim made by people such as myself that the universe will continue to exist indefinitely.
In other words, there is a big difference between saying that the universe had 'A' beginning as opposed to the universe having 'the beginning'. One of many beginnings.
As far a science is concerned there are a number of competing theories as to the type of beginnings possible. Herein lies the problem. The second law of thermodynamics requires the universe to be a closed system. If we could trace causation backwards and forwards a number of times ( we can't of course) but if we could, we would end up with a universe existing as a singularity( highly organized state) and eventually becoming heat dead. With some imagination we could see that this process could go back and forwards forever provided nothing can enter or leave the closed system.
Some of the beginnings of the universe postulated require the universe to be an open system. Therefore, heat death will be avoided by input from an 'outside agency' so to speak. It is because science deals with physical things this 'agency' is always a physical process. Some people want to say that this 'agency' is a non physical entity. I have no problem with this but they need to be aware they are drawing a metaphysical conclusion from scientific facts. At this stage of human development we have no theory to bridge the gap between metaphysics and science. As I have said many time the conclusions reached are metaphysical speculation.
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Actually it is not helpful at all because it is a typo. It should be:
YouTube - The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Finite Universe
Tut
Hi dwashbur,Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I hope you don't mind me using your quote again. I was unhappy with my earlier response to the problem of thermodynamics If you read the stuff I have written it is pretty bad. I will have another go borrowing a bit of science fiction.
Firstly, if (and it is a big if) The Big Bang was the beginning then to talk about what occurred before the Big Bang is meaningless. This is because the Big Bang marks the beginning of time as well. There was no before. Borrowing from the physics forum and Hawking. "To asks what came before the Big Bang is a bit like asking what is north of the North Pole?"
As far as the Big Bang is concerned, talk is usually centred on the universe we are in. This is because it is generally assumed there is only one universe.
What about things existing outside our universe? For example parallel universes. Anyone living in a parallel universe would probably have to experience a very similar linear time experience as ourselves. I think the Bajorans would live their lives like we live ours and not be aware of any other universe existing. As far as we know it is not possible to cross over to another universe even if this other universe was only a few inches away from our universe. There is one possible exception to this rule. The possible exception is what could roughly be termed gravity.
The reason why these two universes ended up being so close together is because gravity has been 'leaking' out of their universe and 'leaking' into ours and vice verse. This has resulted in the two universes slowly being drawn together. In a billion years from now humans and Bajorans are in for a rude shock. When the two universe touch there will be a cataclysm that is beyond imagination. It would be something like the Big Bang all over again.
This fanciful scenario is very roughly like an alternative put forward by string theorists. It is taken as a serious alternative to the Big Bang. On this basis there is no beginning to the universe. We live on a membrane along with countless other membranes. Over trillions of years there will be many occasions when branes touch and 'the' Big Bang is really 'a' Big Bang.
If all this were all true then I guess we could say that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't operate in a closed universe. This is especially true if another 'universe' enters our 'universe' through extra dimensions.
Is there a physicist out there that can help??
Tut
Tut,
I didn't even feel a light breeze as that whole thing sailed over my head...
Hi Dave,Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Then I have provided another poor explanation.
We have all probably gotten ahead of ourselves in this debate. Let's address the central issue in this debate as it has unfolded.
Do the scientific concepts put forward in this debate exclude the possibility that God exists? More specifically, do they exclude the possibility that God exists outside of time and space?
The answer is NO. How can they?
Does the concept of thermodynamics prove the existence of God?
Again. No, How can it.
The majority of people in this forum are correct when they say a belief in God is a matter of faith. These sort of things cannot be demonstrated or refuted by way of science. If Kant were alive today I am sure he would say that those scientists( and others) who try and build a bridge from what we know about thermodynamics to what must be true about the non- physical world will always fall into error. There is no basis for any inference concerning thermodynamics to any metaphysical conclusion about the existence of God.
They are trying to draw conclusions about the existence of God from scientific facts. I would argue this is fallacious reasoning.
Tut
No, you just have a much broader vocabulary than I do! I think that what you're saying may be boiled down into one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes. He saidQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
He neglected to add "from the outside" but in context that's what he meant. Basically it's the same thing I hear you saying: science can't prove the existence of God, but it can't rule it out, either.Quote:
No study of probabilities within a given framework will ever be able to tell us whether the framework itself may be violated.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:27 AM. |