It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Infinity and the Laws of Thermodynamics supports, if not proves the existence of God.

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: edmc^2

Well, we covered the "Something from Nothing" thing already and as I thought we came to the conclusion that Nothing is being used in a flexible way. Logically obviously a Total and Absolute "Nothing" is just that, Nothing, and that wouldn't change. However, such a Nothing isn't what Physicists are talking about, although it is scientifically nothing. You can take that however you want, but even in your video's he talks about it and what it means.

So in that sense, your logical argument against them saying that something comes from nothing is pointless then because you're saying the same thing on your side at that point. Maybe not exactly the same in the details but philosophically it's the same idea as far as I can tell. The only real difference that I see is that you use "Infinite Nothingness/Space" which contains the Finite Universe in basically the same way they do, but you insist on sticking God in there too. Worse still you attribute that God to a Biblical Creative Being as well. Including such a specific God Being, even just conceptually, brings with it all sorts of other issues that are beyond the scope of this topic.

As for me I thought I made that clear earlier but basically I'm on the side that No Personal God Being is needed for Universal Origin. As far as what I understand about the science behind it and the logic that I've studied so far I don't see the need for a God Being included. In fact to include such a being is Illogical to me because it creates other problems for no reason at all.

More specifically, the biblical God you attribute as the Creator, which varies from person to person but usually has certain traits which are always included, is IMO no way near being Logical or Believable in the way it's represented. I won't get into the many reasons why unless you'd like to go there, but basically any Omni-Everything Perfect Being would never be responsible for a book like the bible. To say so is a completely Illogical pursuit IMO.





So in that sense, your logical argument against them saying that something comes from nothing is pointless then because you're saying the same thing on your side at that point


Agree. Reason for me bringing it out is to point the flaw in the logic of Something from Nothing.

That there's no such thing since an always existing something is the starting point of what comes out of it.

There's no other logical explanation otherwise will just have to accept that a total absolute unimaginable emptiness NOTHING was the Cause of all existence.

Edit:

As to my "insertion" of God, what other logical reason but to conclude that - like I said - there MUST be a CAUSED FOR EVERY EFFECT.

As logical beings when we observed an effect, we look for the caused.

If the effect exhibits pure genius then the cause must be someone with great intelligence.

The universe is such, thus there must be someone who caused it who posses great intelligence.








edit on 13-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: Edit




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly




A SINGULARITY IS NOT "NOTHING", IN FACT, IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF NOTHING, IT IS EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING THAT EVER EXISTED AND EVER WILL EXIST, COMPRESSED TO AN INFINTELY SMALL SIZE, WITH INFINTE VALUES FOR GRAVITY, PRESSURE, MASS, VOLUME ETC... IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF NOTHING....


I'm 100% in total agreement. Been my premise from the get go.

But have to this:

For every cause there's an effect. Hence if the SINGULARITY is the result of compressed infinitely small values of gravity, pressure, mass, volume etc, what or who CAUSED IT?



There is a first moment, O---------------Time----------------------->, and then time moves on in just one direction, possibly forever?

There is no moment of time before T=O, just like there is no point on the line above further to the left than the O. Asking "what came before the O on that line" just wouldn't make sense, it would be like asking what point is further North than the North Pole.
It's a question that displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: AfterInfinity

For some reason...this list of yours makes me think that your arguments are purely based on philosophy not sound logic or for that matter common sense.



If I'm correct then you'll never understand and be able to see the obvious.


Are you implying that I just shot myself in the foot by posting the commandments of logic? I don't think so. If anything, I think you should be crawling right now. Shot in the foot, the other foot, both knees, one in the thigh...you get the point. But we can carry you if you need help reaching a sound conclusion in this debate. Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend...I'll help you carry on...


edit on 13-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

I think your logic is flawed. You had a conclusion and then fit the evidence to support that conclusion. Science is objective and pragmatic. To draw a conclusion that logically there has to be a God is illogical. Your argument is not convincing.



How so?

If according to indisputable observation based on verifiable repeatable peer reviewed research that the universe is in a high degree of order, how is it illogical to conclude that it must have a creator?

Order can be observed and measured. A creator cannot. So the logic is flawed. There's not even an assumption here, much less logic.
Or

How is it illogical to say that if a magnificent house requires a great builder, then the universe which is far more sophisticated than a house must have a builder?

Easy. Both the house and builder are observable. The house isn't built by some invisible force that is not quantifiable. The degree of order in the universe is observable and quantifiable, but a builder is not. Again, an assumption that is neither provable nor logical.

Please explain the flaw in ACKNOWLEDGING the existence of the builder?

You can acknowledge the existence of a builder, but that would be your opinion alone. It would have no scientific or logical basis in fact. There's no observable evidence for a builder. Self assembly and organization is observed right down to the subatomic particle level. Nature self assembles with no outside intervention required. It's simply energy transformation from one form to another. Nature builds up and it breaks down. Thermodynamics. That's it.
edit on 13-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: AfterInfinity

For some reason...this list of yours makes me think that your arguments are purely based on philosophy not sound logic or for that matter common sense.



If I'm correct then you'll never understand and be able to see the obvious.


Are you implying that I just shot myself in the foot by posting the commandments of logic? I don't think so. If anything, I think you should be crawling right now. Shot in the foot, the other foot, both knees, one in the thigh...you get the point. But we can carry you if you need help reaching a sound conclusion in this debate. Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend...I'll help you carry on...



Hehehehe!!!

That is funny. Sure I'll be your friend but if the list was intended for me. Sorry, but I don't need such list to tell me that something makes logical sense or not. Nor such list in order to have a logical conversation. In fact such list makes one a handicap.

Free thinkers my friend. Free your mind from the shackles of those who like to dictate what to say or not to say.

Oops you've violated rule #5 and #8 therefore you lose - is that how you play this philosophical game of yours?

If so count me out.


edit on 13-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I beg to differ. You can measure or tell the calibre of the creator by his creation. If the universe was disorganized and disorderly, then you can tell right away if it was intelligently designed/created/made or not.

You can even tell if it's a product of random blind event or not if there was no purpose behind its existence.


Case in point:

A wall of drift wood piled up high by the seashore indicates that it was deposited there by the tide. While a brick wall neatly arranged can easily tell us that it had a maker since it has order and purpose.



Both criteria - order and purpose - is satisfied by observing the universe.

Hence, what can we logically conclude?

That it was indeed a product of a Creator with awesome intelligence and power.

To say otherwise is to close ones mind to the reality.

Hence one has to come up with an alternative EXPLANATION to avoid accepting the obvious.

Note: I'm not even talking about faith here or any religious invocation but just logical thinking.


As for self-organization, I agree that there are many things in nature that has that capability but the question is - did that capability came on there own or did someone put them in there in the first place?

In other words where did the HEAT came from for entropy to even exist?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly




A SINGULARITY IS NOT "NOTHING", IN FACT, IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF NOTHING, IT IS EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING THAT EVER EXISTED AND EVER WILL EXIST, COMPRESSED TO AN INFINTELY SMALL SIZE, WITH INFINTE VALUES FOR GRAVITY, PRESSURE, MASS, VOLUME ETC... IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF NOTHING....


I'm 100% in total agreement. Been my premise from the get go.

But have to this:

For every cause there's an effect. Hence if the SINGULARITY is the result of compressed infinitely small values of gravity, pressure, mass, volume etc, what or who CAUSED IT?



There is a first moment, O---------------Time----------------------->, and then time moves on in just one direction, possibly forever?

There is no moment of time before T=O, just like there is no point on the line above further to the left than the O. Asking "what came before the O on that line" just wouldn't make sense, it would be like asking what point is further North than the North Pole.
It's a question that displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.




Shouldn't the model look like this?

-time--->--infinity----->-------time----------0---------our------time-----infinity---------->

Where 0 is the moment of creation-singularity?


In any case time is one of the most difficult phenomena to understand.

I can't even fathom it just as infinity is unfathomable.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Phantom423

I beg to differ. You can measure or tell the calibre of the creator by his creation. If the universe was disorganized and disorderly, then you can tell right away if it was intelligently designed/created/made or not.

You can even tell if it's a product of random blind event or not if there was no purpose behind its existence.


If you can measure the creator, show the evidence. And not circumstantial evidence - hard evidence, the kind you see, touch, feel, interpret, test. You can't do that with your creator because you have no proof that the creator exists. You're making assumptions based on no facts. Just because the universe appears ordered doesn't mean that a creator did it. It doesn't mean anyone or anything did it. It only means that it has some degree of orderliness. Anything beyond that is unprovable. Look, either you're talking science or you're talking your opinion. Either one is fine, but you can't interchange them just because you feel strongly about it.

Case in point:

A wall of drift wood piled up high by the seashore indicates that it was deposited there by the tide. While a brick wall neatly arranged can easily tell us that it had a maker since it has order and purpose.



Both criteria - order and purpose - is satisfied by observing the universe.

Hence, what can we logically conclude?

That it was indeed a product of a Creator with awesome intelligence and power.

To say otherwise is to close ones mind to the reality.

Reality is what you can observe using physical means like spectroscopy, laboratory experiments, and other data. Science doesn't draw "logical conclusions" without evidence. You still are evidence minus.


Hence one has to come up with an alternative EXPLANATION to avoid accepting the obvious.

Alternative to what? What we can observe and measure is all we know.
Note: I'm not even talking about faith here or any religious invocation but just logical thinking.


As for self-organization, I agree that there are many things in nature that has that capability but the question is - did that capability came on there own or did someone put them in there in the first place?

In other words where did the HEAT came from for entropy to

Remember E = mc2 -- it's the fundamental law of the universe. It's energy transition. You can take that to the bank.
edit on 13-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

Heat is just the product that's produced when matter collides with matter in a way that breaks up the constituent components. It's nothing magical. Neither is entropy. Enthalpy is the thermodynamic potential i.e. the energy inherent in matter. Entropy is defined now not as order/disorder, but rather as energy dispersion. Everything moves towards equilibrium - so as the theory goes, the universe will one day be a widely dispersed neutral zone. But that's not exactly right either because quantum theory says that it's all just transition phase and probabilities.
edit on 13-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

Getting back to your thesis, the logic is flawed because you can't insert a term in the logic (i.e. the creator) without defining its physical properties. This is just the law of science and of nature. We can't take imaginary objects and stick them into any equation that we choose. If we did, the world would be chaotic.

edit on 13-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly




A SINGULARITY IS NOT "NOTHING", IN FACT, IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF NOTHING, IT IS EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING THAT EVER EXISTED AND EVER WILL EXIST, COMPRESSED TO AN INFINTELY SMALL SIZE, WITH INFINTE VALUES FOR GRAVITY, PRESSURE, MASS, VOLUME ETC... IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF NOTHING....


I'm 100% in total agreement. Been my premise from the get go.

But have to this:

For every cause there's an effect. Hence if the SINGULARITY is the result of compressed infinitely small values of gravity, pressure, mass, volume etc, what or who CAUSED IT?



There is a first moment, O---------------Time----------------------->, and then time moves on in just one direction, possibly forever?

There is no moment of time before T=O, just like there is no point on the line above further to the left than the O. Asking "what came before the O on that line" just wouldn't make sense, it would be like asking what point is further North than the North Pole.
It's a question that displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.




Shouldn't the model look like this?

-time--->--infinity----->-------time----------0---------our------time-----infinity---------->

Where 0 is the moment of creation-singularity?


In any case time is one of the most difficult phenomena to understand.

I can't even fathom it just as infinity is unfathomable.




No...

The problem we have here is a failure to communicate. The English language is not well suited to describe models of physics. Talking about "the beginning of the Universe" when time itself is a property of the Universe is one of those cases.
English just doesn't accurately convey the correct information, the words are too laden with additional connotations and heavy baggage.
This is why physicists use maths.

I will try to explain...
T=0 is not really a "beginning." Time is just a dimension.. If you imagine the minimum value of time as analogous to "the farthest you can possibly move to the left, after that you find yourself moving in the direction you formerly identified as right," you might begin to conceive of at least one of the hypotheses based on the real Universe as opposed to the human-perspicacity model in your head.
The North Pole is no more the "beginning" of the Earth than literally any other point on the planet, and T=0 is not necessarily any more a "beginning" for the Universe. The Universe doesn't "come into being" at T=0 any more than the Earth "comes into being" at the North Pole.

Look at Time as just another dimension, a continuum of coordinates. The state of the Universe in any specific coordinate of spacetime is related to its state at contiguous coordinates. This can give us the illusion of causality.

When you talk about the "cause of the Universe," you're really talking about "the cause of the system that provides the illusion of causality," which immediately requires the assumption that there's an additional causality system to the one we actually observe. This is an unfounded assumption based on human hubris rather than actual evidence.






edit on fFriday145067f505607 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




If you can measure the creator, show the evidence. And not circumstantial evidence - hard evidence, the kind you see, touch, feel, interpret, test. You can't do that with your creator because you have no proof that the creator exists. You're making assumptions based on no facts. Just because the universe appears ordered doesn't mean that a creator did it. It doesn't mean anyone or anything did it. It only means that it has some degree of orderliness. Anything beyond that is unprovable. Look, either you're talking science or you're talking your opinion. Either one is fine, but you can't interchange them just because you feel strongly about it.


Here lies the heart of the true investigative scientist - the ability to look at evidence both circumstantial or otherwise. Just like in a court of law where evidences are presented - both hard and circumstantial. But if hard evidence is not available, CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is considered. And depending on the validity, veracity and truthfulness of the evidence the verdict can be decided.

Unfortunately, in the court science (which is sadly populated by proponents of evolution) circumstantial evidence are not admitted nor permitted.

Thus rendering the opposite side of the argument mute and by default unprovable. Thus it is rejected.

So how can truth win if circumstantial evidence is not even permitted because of hard physical evidence of an INFINITE Creator can't be presented in the court of science?

It can't. If this is your criteria.

But this leads me to believe that if this is the case, then you make your side of the argument weak in that it has to impose a restriction so as not to be proven wrong and by default make it the only truth.

So why the restriction?

But going back to what you said - in what criteria can you proposed to measure infinity?

Tell me, by what parameters and instrumentation can I use to measure eternity?

If you can tell me this then I might be able to provide what you're asking for - measure God.

As Archimedes said:


Give me a place to stand and I will move the world!


BTW - evolution is based on circumstantial evidence since no one today was alive 1 or 2 million years ago.
All we have are fossils of long bygone era - if evolution even occurred.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: AfterInfinity

For some reason...this list of yours makes me think that your arguments are purely based on philosophy not sound logic or for that matter common sense.



If I'm correct then you'll never understand and be able to see the obvious.


Are you implying that I just shot myself in the foot by posting the commandments of logic? I don't think so. If anything, I think you should be crawling right now. Shot in the foot, the other foot, both knees, one in the thigh...you get the point. But we can carry you if you need help reaching a sound conclusion in this debate. Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend...I'll help you carry on...



Hehehehe!!!

That is funny. Sure I'll be your friend but if the list was intended for me. Sorry, but I don't need such list to tell me that something makes logical sense or not. Nor such list in order to have a logical conversation. In fact such list makes one a handicap.

Free thinkers my friend. Free your mind from the shackles of those who like to dictate what to say or not to say.

Oops you've violated rule #5 and #8 therefore you lose - is that how you play this philosophical game of yours?



If so count me out.



No. If you break those commandments, then the chances are much greater that you have a flawed argument. And indeed, we have proven that your argument is flawed. Repeatedly. You may not have noticed while you were busy inventing your own brand of logic and trying to pass it off as sound. The commandments are basically a list of examples of what logical fallacies look like. Maybe some of it looks familiar to you.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I think you're mistaking circumstantial evidence for extrapolation based on assumptions. Give me your condensed circumstantial evidence and I will demonstrate what I mean.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Phantom423




If you can measure the creator, show the evidence. And not circumstantial evidence - hard evidence, the kind you see, touch, feel, interpret, test. You can't do that with your creator because you have no proof that the creator exists. You're making assumptions based on no facts. Just because the universe appears ordered doesn't mean that a creator did it. It doesn't mean anyone or anything did it. It only means that it has some degree of orderliness. Anything beyond that is unprovable. Look, either you're talking science or you're talking your opinion. Either one is fine, but you can't interchange them just because you feel strongly about it.


Here lies the heart of the true investigative scientist - the ability to look at evidence both circumstantial or otherwise. Just like in a court of law where evidences are presented - both hard and circumstantial. But if hard evidence is not available, CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is considered. And depending on the validity, veracity and truthfulness of the evidence the verdict can be decided.

Unfortunately, in the court science (which is sadly populated by proponents of evolution) circumstantial evidence are not admitted nor permitted.

Thus rendering the opposite side of the argument mute and by default unprovable. Thus it is rejected.

So how can truth win if circumstantial evidence is not even permitted because of hard physical evidence of an INFINITE Creator can't be presented in the court of science?

It can't. If this is your criteria.

But this leads me to believe that if this is the case, then you make your side of the argument weak in that it has to impose a restriction so as not to be proven wrong and by default make it the only truth.


Circumstantial evidence is also about facts. But the facts are indirectly associated to the direct evidence:

"Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence."
As regards your hypothesis, you have no circumstantial evidence either. In science, a circumstantial fact is more like a hypothesis which hasn't been tested yet. It's a combination of observation and related facts that lead to the direct question. The flow chart of your evidence is missing circumstantial as well as hard evidence.


But going back to what you said - in what criteria can you proposed to measure infinity?

Tell me, by what parameters and instrumentation can I use to measure eternity?

If you can tell me this then I might be able to provide what you're asking for - measure God.

I never said infinity was measurable or that there was instrumentation to measure infinity. It's an open-ended question. I said in my previous post that we did not currently have that capability - that doesn't mean we won't have it in the future. But right now, we don't.

As Archimedes said:


Give me a place to stand and I will move the world!


BTW - evolution is based on circumstantial evidence since no one today was alive 1 or 2 million years ago.
All we have are fossils of long bygone era - if ev

This is wrong. Evolution has been demonstrated in a multitude of experiments. Evolution has massive amounts of supporting evidence from many fields of science—anatomy, geology, animal behavior, paleontology and molecular biology. In science there is no such thing as 100 percent certainty. But the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that scientists say the probability of it being true approaches 100 percent. All the questions about transitional fossils, dating methodology - all of this has been validated in the lab and is reproducible. Creationists simply ignore the evidence and reconstruct the world and nature to their liking to fit their agenda.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Circumstantial evidence is also about facts. But the facts are indirectly associated to the direct evidence:

"Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence."
As regards your hypothesis, you have no circumstantial evidence either. In science, a circumstantial fact is more like a hypothesis which hasn't been tested yet. It's a combination of observation and related facts that lead to the direct question. The flow chart of your evidence is missing circumstantial as well as hard evidence.


Yet the circumstantial evidence that I've presented are not as you say "hypothesis" but are verifiable evidence. That is, they point to an unmistakable evidence of a Creator.

In fact the evidence can be considered hard evidence if you're not too bias against it.

Like in a court of law a "finger print" can also serve to convict or exonerate a person.

And all creation shows unmisticably the "fingerprint" of God.

The Fibonacci sequence being one of them.

The universe is full of it from spiral galaxies to sunflowers to see creatures down to molecular level.

Photosynthesis is another.

Water cycle is another.

The earth's atmosphere, its magnetic shield.

The location of the earth relative to the size of the universe.

The planetary motion.

The distances of planets in relation to their size.

These are just but a few of millions of Gods handiwork.

But like I said if you're not too bias against it then you will see the hallmark tell tail sign of a great Creator.

To prove my point:

If you find a1000 year old flint arrow lying by a river bank among rocks and pebbles, what conclusion will you arrived at?

Did it have a maker or not?

Or was it a product of evolution? Or some random chance event?

Or would say it was made by someone with some intelligence? I would say the same.

But compare this to single blade of grass, was it created by someone with intelligence or was it a product of an undirected chance event? That no one created it?



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2

I think you're mistaking circumstantial evidence for extrapolation based on assumptions. Give me your condensed circumstantial evidence and I will demonstrate what I mean.


E = m c 2 > if it takes a mind of an Einstein to put this together, what would it take to actually make it happen?

In other words if it takes intelligence to figure it out why is there no need for intelligence to make it happen?



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

Waste energy. He's the guy that lit a billion billion suns. If you saw Him, you'd be a plasma.


I see. So he's all powerful and can do anything except show himself without melting my face off. Makes perfect sense. Seems to me like that is the same as saying God does have his limitations.


It says so in a certain collection of books written by bronze-age shepherds. 3,000 years later and we're still trying to understand its ideas and implications.


Right. I know when ever I think of credible sources for information, 3,000 year old shepherds are the first people that spring to my mind.

I would say that all this sounds like you people are just making this stuff up as you go along but you're not even that creative because I've heard it all before. You people really need some new material.


You do know that God did reveal himself (in part) to the people spoken of in the Bible, you just missed it.



Are you sure?

If so how?

And can you prove/provide evidence that what you say is true?


It would appear that over a million people traipsed in circles in the desert for 40 years because they believed this guy "Moshe" was receiving instructions directly from 'the one true God'. Oh, and apparently when he came back from speaking to God his face was shining so brightly that people were afraid of him.

Not just the Hebrew writings but also the Qur'an assumes that this 'Moshe account' was factual.

More recently, the same thing was observed to happen to Jesus (the shining face bit). Three of the actual eye-witnesses and a contemporary historian recorded it.

There are non-Hebrew histories that also support the Hebrew people leaving Egypt and then later invading Caanan which although not direct evidence, does support the Hebrew accounts.

There are also non-Christian historical sources (not just Josephus) that report on the existence of Jesus and His effect on people at the time.

So, I can't provide direct evidence but there is some circumstantial evidence.

But this has nothing to do with Thermodynamics or the existence of God, does it.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

I liked that you added "In part" in there. Is that so their faces didn't melt off too???

I'm aware of it in either case. I suppose the difference is that I don't automatically believe everything I read. Even more to the point though, I didn't automatically deny it either. Like most people I was told early on to believe it and did without question for a while, even though some of it really didn't make sense.

Then later on, when I grew up a bit I decided to really examine what I believed and why. It was then that holding onto those beliefs really started to fall apart.

I thank you for your concern however. I'm still open to the ideas of others, but I don't think you're going to show me anything new that I haven't already looked at myself. If I happen to change my mind though, I'll let you know.


No, I don't think I have anything that will change what you choose in life. I'm just following a thread topic.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
I have a problem understanding how you justify the claim that your God, Jehovah (or otherwise) is Infinite. He, God, does have certain attributes and characteristics which would limit him from being Infinite. For example he is said to be Jealous, Kind, Loving, Gracious, etc. However is he also Hateful, Spiteful, Angry, Mean, Deceptive, etc.??? If he is some of those and not others than how is he Infinite???


How exactly does being "Hateful, Spiteful, Angry, Mean, Deceptive," towards EVIL "negate" his eternal existence? Would YOU put up with it? Lots of WARNINGS, AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, UNTIL you all IGNORE, then sit there with your thumbs up your ass, wondering what happened...
edit on 14-6-2014 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Agree. Reason for me bringing it out is to point the flaw in the logic of Something from Nothing.

That there's no such thing since an always existing something is the starting point of what comes out of it.

There's no other logical explanation otherwise will just have to accept that a total absolute unimaginable emptiness NOTHING was the Cause of all existence.


Right, so in this case Theology, Philosophy and Physics agree to the initial conditions. Once the definitions for Nothing, Void, etc. all match and everyone is using them in the same way.


As to my "insertion" of God, what other logical reason but to conclude that - like I said - there MUST be a CAUSED FOR EVERY EFFECT.

As logical beings when we observed an effect, we look for the caused.

If the effect exhibits pure genius then the cause must be someone with great intelligence.

The universe is such, thus there must be someone who caused it who posses great intelligence.



Ok let's talk about this now. You say the "First Cause" is one showing Genius and Intelligence because of it displaying complexity and order. Even more, the complexity and order also increase over time as well. Therefor this shows an Intelligent Creator as that "First Cause". That's what you're saying correct??

First let's talk about the use of "Laws" which you keep using. These "Laws" of the Universe who you claim must have a "Law Maker" that you say is God, I think you're mistaken, at least partially. They do have a "Law Maker" but it is Man, not God. Universal Laws are just Man's way of Simulating Reality by Extrapolating Information and Coding it in to our Language. We say that the "Law of Gravity" is what we measure and define it as but in reality it just Is. Calling it Gravity is even presumptuous since we're talking about a concept based off of an observed experience that we extrapolate measurements in to a coded language. That's some serious abstract processes going on there. What we define as any Universal Law, such as Gravity, is no more actual Gravity any more than what we define as "Tree" is an actual Tree. We could conceptualize and Define Tree for a thousand years and that concept would be nothing like the Actual Tree itself.

My point being that saying Laws need a Maker, that being God, because the "Universe obeys Laws" is not true. The Universe is what it is period. The ways we choose to simulate our experience with it into Language and Concepts are in no way actually connected other than to us and our coding method. There is no Law of Codes somewhere in the Galactic Library of the Universe keeping things in order, that's just how we Humans relate to the information we are recording from it.

This is also how it relates to your claim of "First Cause" intelligence. Since the Universe Just is......Period. What you are really saying when you talk about Universal Complexity and Order is actually Our Explanation for what we're seeing. We use numbers and symbols to code our measurements and observed experiences into a code which then gives the impression of Genius Complexity and Order. But those are just words and most are abstract concepts also rather than things, but as I said above, still aren't any closer to being those actual things, they're just symbolic coding for it.

So the real question is, what is Complexity anyway??? It's a concept that relates to something we call complexity and according to you something complex must come from something complex right??? But does it really??? How well do we really understand the Laws of Complexity??? Intuition and Logic may say nothing simple can become complex on it's own, but obviously it can, for example.

"A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram has shown this to be the case. A simple repetition of a simple rule set can sometimes produce complexity which is NOT predictable until it has been been processed.


he basic setup for Wolfram's cellular automata is very simple. There is a row of cells, each black or white. Then there is a rule that says what color each cell will be, based on the colors of a certain neighborhood of cells on the row above. What pattern one gets depends greatly on the rule one uses--which can be specified by saying what color a cell will be for every possible arrangement of neighboring cells.


Many of the rules do only very simple things--or at least make patterns that may be intricate but are ultimately very regular. Others become unpredictably complex. In other words a process of simple to complex on it's own.

Fractals are another example where by repeating a simple rule billions upon billions of times yields Infinite Complexity from a Simple Origin.

Let's not forget one my favorites like Phi or 1.168... 0.618,,, Which is our code for one way Nature Grows and how things approx. double into the Complexity around you. Fibbonacci used simple doubling of the previous number to approximate it's value but with it you can see first hand the process of Simple to Complex which is withing it. It's no wonder they called it the "Divine Proportion" and "Golden Mean" once you understand what it represents.

In a sense, Everything I've just shown you many have been called the Signature's of God by some and to some degree I would say they are correct, philosophically speaking that is. However, most also then make the mistake of then applying some preformed "God Concept" that they choose to believe on to these ideas, completely losing all it's meaning and corrupting it as they try to use it to "Prove their God" as Supreme. However, when properly understood you see that the Intelligent "First Cause" God isn't the Ultimate Complexity. It's Ultimate Simplicity. It's practically "Nothing" actually. That's the Magic of it in a way.

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at....



new topics




 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join