|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 23:23:13 GMT
Post by goz on Dec 28, 2020 23:23:13 GMT
There’s nothing you guys can do. Everyone gets to think whatever they want. Tough, huh?  I never doubted it. To quote your dusgusting mentor..."It is what it is"! YOu can't leglislate for stupid irrational and delusion. Just look at Trumptards for some of the best examples.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 23:34:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 28, 2020 23:34:04 GMT
In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. ... For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 23:37:42 GMT
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 28, 2020 23:37:42 GMT
In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. ... For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes. I've asked you several time to name one actual credible physicist willing to backup the first cause argument. I'm still waiting.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 23:52:52 GMT
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Dec 28, 2020 23:52:52 GMT
You’re always hostile for the sake of being hostile. If you’re against me, I know I’m doing something right. It's called a discussion Board. People of varied opinions discuss stuff. I can't help it in this discussion, that I have logic, rationality and reason on my side and you merely have delusion fabrication and wishful thinking! That's all he does. He avoids answering the question/goes off on tangents/throws in the occasional insult. It's classic troll behaviour. There's no point in engaging with it.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 23:53:28 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 28, 2020 23:53:28 GMT
In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. ... For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes. I am not sure what it is you are trying to prove, or show making this statement. Perhaps you can be a little clearer? If it intended to show that the universe will be around for ever then it takes no account of current theories concerning its theorised eventual heat death. Or is it a plea for deism?
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 0:02:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 29, 2020 0:02:33 GMT
Physicists believe in the Laws of Physics.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 0:03:51 GMT
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 29, 2020 0:03:51 GMT
Physicists believe in the Laws of Physics. Then you should have no trouble naming one credible physicist that will backup the first cause argument
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 0:12:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 29, 2020 0:12:13 GMT
Physicists don’t know the origin of the universe.
They do know that human beings aren’t “its”, though.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 0:14:21 GMT
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 29, 2020 0:14:21 GMT
Physicists don’t know the origin of the universe. They do know that human beings aren’t “its”, though. So in other words you can't name an actual credible physicist willing to back up the first cause argument "Physicists don’t know the origin of the universe. " That's just God of the Gaps fallacy "They do know that human beings aren’t “its”, though. " I dunno what that has to do with what I said
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 0:21:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 29, 2020 0:21:40 GMT
Why do you guys care so much if people think thoughts that you don’t think?
Billions and billions of innocent people aren’t having problems with what YOU think. LOL
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 0:34:20 GMT
Post by goz on Dec 29, 2020 0:34:20 GMT
Why do you guys care so much if people think thoughts that you don’t think? Billions and billions of innocent people aren’t having problems with what YOU think. LOL I dont. You can think what you like and so can I. I think that your thinking on this particular subject however is irrational and delusional and illogical. That you care is on you. If billions of people share your view, then they, too are irrational and delusiontal and illogical.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 1:32:13 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 29, 2020 1:32:13 GMT
Why do you guys care so much if people think thoughts that you don’t think? Billions and billions of innocent people aren’t having problems with what YOU think. LOL They might be a bit disappointed though in that their self-appointed Defender does not answer direct questions, always sounds defensive and repeats herself over and over....
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 6:28:41 GMT
Post by goz on Dec 29, 2020 6:28:41 GMT
Why do you guys care so much if people think thoughts that you don’t think? Billions and billions of innocent people aren’t having problems with what YOU think. LOL Define 'innocent'.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 7:28:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 29, 2020 7:28:37 GMT
In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. ... For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes.
————-
This doesn’t prove the origin of the universe - nothing does.
It seems more than a little logical that it didn’t show up out of nowhere, though.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 14:01:33 GMT
goz likes this
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 29, 2020 14:01:33 GMT
In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. ... For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes. ————- This doesn’t prove the origin of the universe - nothing does. It seems more than a little logical that it didn’t show up out of nowhere, though. The question more of interest to atheists is more whether it was started deliberately through interference from another, magical reality. Science does not currently consider this as a hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 14:42:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 29, 2020 14:42:00 GMT
Science doesn’t expect that the laws of physics were violated in the formation of the universe.
So it is not logical to decide that the universe exists without any sort of “outside” help.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 15:37:48 GMT
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 29, 2020 15:37:48 GMT
Science doesn’t expect that the laws of physics were violated in the formation of the universe. So it is not logical to decide that the universe exists without any sort of “outside” help. Then you should have no problem citing one credible physicist willing to backup the first cause argument. Still waiting.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 17:36:40 GMT
Post by SciFive on Dec 29, 2020 17:36:40 GMT
Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality.
Schroeder received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He worked seven years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.
After emigrating to Israel in 1971, Schroeder was employed as a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science, the Volcani Research Institute, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He currently teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies.
Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six-day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer's perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Albert Einstein's general relativity.Namely, that from the perspective of the point of origin of the Big Bang, according to Einstein's equations of the 'stretching factor', time dilates by a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000,000, meaning one trillion days on earth would appear to pass as one day from that point, due to the stretching of space.
When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day. Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who promoted atheism for most of his adult life indicated that the arguments of Gerald Schroeder had influenced his decision to become a deist.
Works:
Genesis and the Big Bang (1990)
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, (1997)
The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, (2002)
God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along, (2009)
Not everyone agrees with him on either side of the argument, but I've read his books and they are fascinating, in my view.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 17:54:40 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 29, 2020 17:54:40 GMT
When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day. Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who promoted atheism for most of his adult life indicated that the arguments of Gerald Schroeder had influenced his decision to become a deist. Works:
Genesis and the Big Bang (1990)
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, (1997)
The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, (2002)
God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along, (2009) Not everyone agrees with him on either side of the argument, but I've read his books and they are fascinating, in my view. Flew was never a 'Day-Age' creationist, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism#:~:text=Day%2Dage%20creationism%2C%20a%20type,thousands%20to%20billions%20of%20years) as your reading of There is a God (2007) ought to have told you. Sorry about that. It is also a mistake to claim that Flew embraced classical theism in any substantial form; rather, he came to believe merely that an intelligent orderer of the universe existed. He did not believe that this "being" had any further agency in the universe, and he maintained his opposition to the vast majority of doctrinal positions adopted by the global faiths, such as belief in the after-life, or a divine being who actively cares for or loves the universe, or the resurrection of Christ, and argued for the idea of an "Aristotelian God". He explained that he, like Socrates, had simply followed the evidence, and the new evidence from science and natural theology made it possible to rationally advance belief in an intelligent being who ordered the universe. His account of his "conversion" contains this description: In short, he was ultimately taken by the Argument from Design. at least enough to turn deist. Such an argument is just a subjective judgement over whether things 'look designed'. One might legitimately have a similar, opposing judgement that the world looks exactly as it would if its current form and processes had been arrived at by wholly natural processes. The difference being that we can, at least, see those processes working. It may be noted that making out of an age a day is, essentially just another form of qualification of God and His supposed works, where the regular definition of a word is stretched beyond any standard use to enable convenient special pleading for the supposed literal truth of scripture.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 29, 2020 18:25:47 GMT
Post by SciFive on Dec 29, 2020 18:25:47 GMT
Ok, something really ironic - and I would have mentioned it sooner but I read this book over ten years ago:
The topics in this book are often the same ones that exist here in this forum (RFS).
Schroeder, Gerald L.. God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along. HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
An excerpt:
The argument against the biblical description of our cosmic genesis is quite basic. If this supposed Creator is actively interested in Its creation, then that Creator has a very perverse sense of compassion and perhaps of humor—more like that of a monster: earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones have swept hundreds of thousands to their horrendous deaths; approximately eighty million humans have been murdered by fellow humans in the past century. Logic, so their argument goes, dictates that a Creator God, if It existed, would have more empathy in Its guidance of the world It produced.
So powerful is this divergence from the often preconceived notion of how a concerned God “should” behave that Bart Ehrman, chair of the Department of Religion at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and former pastor of Princeton Baptist Church, rejected his belief in Christianity. The title of his 2008 book provides his reasoning: God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer. “The problem of pain,” he writes, “ruined my faith.”1
Atheists also argue that God is irrelevant, an unnecessary component to human society. Even without a God forcing the rules of the Bible down our throats, humanity would have discovered that communities following the logical laws of society are likely to have a greater chance of survival than loners in the wilderness. This urban style of morality, they reason, merely evolved from—is a more sophisticated version of—our animal ancestors’ survival instinct to herd or flock together, as birds of a feather do so well. We don’t need a God to tell us that. “Morality,” Richard Dawkins, Oxford University professor of the Public Understanding of Science, tells us in his 2007 book The God Delusion and again in his BBC documentary Religion: The Root of All Evil, “stems from altruistic genes naturally selected in our evolutionary past.”2 For morality we need neither a God nor a Bible.
E. O. Wilson, in his acclaimed book Consilience, agrees wholeheartedly. Wilson tells us that “the Enlightenment thinkers…got it mostly right the first time. The assumptions they made of a lawful material world, the intrinsic unity of knowledge, and the potential of indefinite human progress are the ones we still take most readily into our hearts.” Unfortunately, his “dream of a world made orderly and fulfilling by free intellect” is a dream based on gossamer.3 It has nothing to do with reality. As Wilson describes in great detail, the intellectual freedom of the Enlightenment itself sowed the seeds for the French revolution’s Reign of Terror, in which the leading intellectuals of the day were slaughtered.
In a more recent attempt at achieving the Enlightenment’s goal of humankind’s free intellect finding the way to peace and fulfillment, we need only turn to the ultimate enactment of the philosophy of Karl Marx, his famous claim that religion is “the opium of the people.” And when religion was finally abandoned, we achieved what Marx might have envisioned, had he paid better attention to the lessons of the past. Within a century, Communist Russia (a perversion of the concept of the commune) produced the most uncommunal of all societies, brutal and totally repressive of any form of intellectual freedom.
History repeatedly brings an unwelcome message that we often strive to ignore: the unfettered use of human logic does not lead to a just and moral society, the claims of philosophers Baruch Spinoza and E. O. Wilson notwithstanding. The biological basis of our moral judgments teaches us that the human genome is programmed for pleasure and survival, not for morality.
Of course Dawkins is correct on one point here. Religion is the root of all evil, though not exactly as that statement implies. The very concept of a definitive evil requires that there be a clear distinction between good and evil. And that distinction is totally of biblical origin. A society based on moral relativity has no fixed bounds. Individuals and groups can decide what is good for them, which in another society or situation might in fact be deemed evil.
When atheists describe God as a sinister monster, a superficial reading of the Bible seems to confirm their view. For starters, we’ve got biblically condoned slavery (Lev. 25:35–36; Exod. 21:26), genocide in the wars by which the invading tribes of Israel, following the Exodus from Egypt, displace the local tribes of Canaan (Deut. 20:12), and God refusing Moses entry into the Promised Land merely because he made a single mistake (Num. 20:6–12).
Yet the same Book also teaches love of neighbor and the alien (Lev. 19:18, 34). There is one law for both native and foreigner (Lev. 24:22). That demand for equality is extraordinary, especially considering that, amid the grandeur that was Greece and the glory that was Rome, a thousand years after the revelation at Sinai, foreigners were still considered barbarians and were treated likewise.
The Torah, the Five Books of Moses (Genesis–Deuteronomy), demands one set of measures and weights for all customers, whether friend or foe (Deut. 25:13), and forbids murder (Exod. 20:13), robbery (Exod. 20:13; Lev. 5:21), oppressing the stranger (an admonition repeated thirty-six times in the Torah), and cruelty to animals (Deut. 25:4). Even the wanton destruction of trees is forbidden (Deut. 20:19).4 The biblical balance sheet is not as damning as some would have it. But then perhaps the biblical God is schizophrenic—sometimes vicious, sometimes compassionate.
God as schizophrenic? No. But God is also not as simplistic as we often paint God to be. If we take a second look at the Bible, we discover the biblical God reveals a far more complex character than the simplistic version of an always-in-charge, predictable Ruler of the heavens and the earth. When passages of the Bible are quoted out of context, or read in translation, whether that translation is the twenty-two-hundred-year-old Greek Septuagint or a modern English version of the original Hebrew, nuances are often lost. Meanings of words are actually changed to fit within the grammar of the “newer” language.
Certainly if those persons involved in the search for extraterrestrial life received a message from outer space, that message would be studied and analyzed for every nuance. The Bible, if Divine in origin, is a message from totally “outer space.” It requires careful study. In this book, we’re going to do exactly that.
|
|
