Author Topic: You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)  (Read 2054 times)

storch

  • Guest
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2004, 08:57:35 PM »
No takers?  anyone? c'mon one of you intelligent godless types can take on a blacksmith for pete's sake, can't you?  nothing clever to say xtomato?

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2004, 09:26:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
No takers?  anyone? c'mon one of you intelligent godless types can take on a blacksmith for pete's sake, can't you?  nothing clever to say xtomato?

Here's the deal, I respect your right to have beliefs that are different from mine.  I don't want to 'take you on' because I think it would demonstrate poor taste.  My priorities for this life are:

1. Protect and provide for my family.
2. Always do good by others.
3. Square all my debts, financially and other.
4. Watch out for #1, don't step in #2.
(list continues for a while)
.....
.....
.....
(until we get to)
8893. Try to somehow outwit Storch and take away the religion from which he gains strength and comfort.

Quote
...intelligent godless types...

I don't know if I'm particularly intelligent, but I think I get by.  Of course, 80% of drivers think they are above average, so who knows?  If by 'godless' you mean that I don't believe there is a god, then yes, that's accurate.  But if you mean it as 'someone who has not found god yet' or something else, then I think there's a misunderstanding about the strength of my beliefs.

I'll discuss the subject, but I don't like the idea of arguing it because that kind of argument can only piss people off and, since it's inherently unprovable, can never produce anything.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2004, 09:26:44 PM »
Quote
The story is often told that in the late 1940s, John von Neumann, a pioneer of the computer age, advised communication-theorist Claude E. Shannon to start using the term entropy when discussing information because "no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage"


The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system and the perpetual loss of energy through interaction in that closed system. It is very specific.

Creationists have perverted the law to make a point that is moot by this time. Give it up Storch and join the 19th century.

Offline xrtoronto

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2004, 09:33:13 PM »

Offline Sundowner

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2004, 09:35:51 PM »
==============================================
quote Chairboy:
"I can, one by one, demonstrate the elements of scientific reasoning and historical studies. But a religious person cannot prove through demonstration anything except that they feel in their heart that they are correct."
==============================================


Sorry for the long cut and paste, CB.  Just thought I'd toss this out for your consideration and comments.

Thanks
Sun

btw, the main site has lots more science based evidence that you may find interesting.

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml



In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator, cosmologists (and others) are resorting to more and more bizarre alternatives. There is a certain logic to it all, however. If for personal reasons the God of the Bible is unacceptable, then given the evidence for transcendence and design, the alternatives are severely limited to flights of fancy.

Often in such cases the stated basis for rejection of the God of the Bible is a lack of absolute proof of His existence. However, because we humans are confined to the space-time continuum of the universe, we cannot claim absolute proof of anything. But, that does not mean we cannot draw secure conclusions.

For example, we lack absolute proof that the earth is spherical rather than flat. Nevertheless, we accept the sphericity of the earth because the explanations for a flat earth fall into the category of the absurd, and as time and research progress, those explanations become increasingly absurd, A similar state of affairs has developed and is continuing to develop for the existence of the God of the Bible.

Design Parameters
Recently, it has become possible not only to investigate the transcendence of the Creator, but also to investigate something of His personality. Now that the limits and parameters of the universe have come within the measuring capacity of astronomers and physicists, the design characteristics of the universe are being examined and acknowledged; Astronomers have discovered that the characteristics and parameters of the universe and our solar system are so finely tuned to support life that nothing less than a personal, intelligent Creator can explain the degree of fine-tunedness. It requires power and purpose.

Approximately two dozen parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in order for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Evidence for design in the universe101 - 110

1. gravitational coupling constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant

if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11. initial uniformity of radiation

if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12. average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized
13. solar luminosity

if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
if increases too late: frozen oceans
14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
17. decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton

if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
19. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even two percent stronger or two percent weaker, the universe would never be able to support life.111, 112 More astounding yet, the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and/or carbon for any kind of life.110 The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive.113 It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 55th! Clearly some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.

The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a profound theological impact upon astronomers. Fred Hoyle concluded in 1982 that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."114 Paul Davies moved from promoting atheism in 1983115 to conceding in 1984 that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design"116 to testifying in his 1988 book The Cosmic Blueprint that there "is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming."117 George Greenstein in 1988 expressed these thoughts:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?118

Words such as superintellect, monkeyed, exceedingly ingenious, supernatural Agency, Supreme Being and providentially crafted obviously apply only to a Person. But, more than just establishing that the Creator is a Person, the findings about design provide evidence of what that Person is like. One characteristic that stands out dramatically in His interest and care for living things and particularly for the human race.

For example, the mass density of the universe determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. As Table 5 indicates, if the mass density is too great, too much deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus) is made in the first few minutes of the universe's existence. This extra deuterium will cause all the stars to burn much too quickly and erratically for any of them to sup-port a planet with life upon it. On the other hand, if the mass density is too small, so little deuterium and helium is made in the first few minutes that the heavier elements necessary for life will never form in the stars. What this means is that the approximately one hundred billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no less, are needed for life to be possible in the universe. Evidently, God cared so much for living creatures that He constructed a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live. Of all the gods of the various religions of the world, only the God of the Bible is revealed as investing this much (and more) in humanity.
Freedom implies risk. Less freedom implies more risk.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2004, 09:40:08 PM »
God must have invented the 26 letter alphabet too. If smaller I couldn't spell my name... if larger it would confuse most people on this board.
:rolleyes:

Offline hawker238

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2004, 09:43:25 PM »
Wow, we got lucky.  Its kind of like we had an infinite amount of chances.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2004, 09:52:33 PM »
What a waste of space for a Michael Moore thread.  Shame on you

Karaya
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2004, 10:09:10 PM »
God to me is some form of higher power or higher belief..

As for God vs Science or God vs the big bang, I see plenty of room for god before the big bang which is something people will likely never explain scientifically to anybody's satisfaction.  

Personally I like the idea of a god who lights the candle and lets us do our best, with some guidance. It seems big and god like. On the other hand, I find the idea of an obsssesive god who is concerned with every  minute aspect of your personal private life to be very petty and very human, espaecially these standards of morality change over time as new leaders and theologies establish themselves in our various churches in response to changing societal norms.. Remember it was not too long ago that churches advocated slavery or the burning of apparently innocent people on trumped up charges opf witchcraft.  Or take the sometimes severe christian restrictions on the consumption of alchol, yet what is it that Jesus and the apostles drank?

storch

  • Guest
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2004, 10:09:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system and the perpetual loss of energy through interaction in that closed system. It is very specific.

Creationists have perverted the law to make a point that is moot by this time. Give it up Storch and join the 19th century.


Absolute nothing isn't a closed system?  space isn't a closed system?  what comes in? what goes out?

All I'm trying to say here is science has no answer to the question of origin. Eg. it takes more faith to believe what some of you believe than you are even willing to admit.

Offline stiehl

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 329
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2004, 10:17:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hawker238
Wow, we got lucky.  Its kind of like we had an infinite amount of chances.


Quantum Mechanics+10 billion or so years=that's a lot of chances.

Offline hawker238

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2004, 10:32:37 PM »
How about we look at it this way: when did god(s) originate?

I'm not talking about a hypothetical answer, such as "before the big bang."  Isn't god more of an invention of man, evolved over the millenia?  Seems to me god is exactly the leap-of-faith solution to all metaphysical questions that have gone unanswered by man, as a tool of comfort.  Its almost like an impediment to further scientific progress....

And I ignore that "there will be problems you can't solve."  That's loser talk.

Offline Torque

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2004, 10:59:37 PM »
You got it right Hawk, a crutch for weak.

Offline Tuomio

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2004, 02:04:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
Absolute nothing isn't a closed system?  space isn't a closed system?  what comes in? what goes out?


Copy & paste

1.2: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe is constant. Big Bang theory, on the other hand, states that all of the energy of the universe came from nothing. Therefore, Big Bang cosmology violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

(ii) For a theory to violate the lst law of thermodynamics, the theory must predict two points in time T and T', such that the total energy of the universe at T, and the total energy of the universe at T', do not match one another. The creationist argument hinges on Big Bang theory stipulating a time t < 0, prior to the initial singularity of the universe, at which there was no energy at all (because the universe did not exist). However, if the origin of the universe is the origin of time (see 1.1), then the idea of such a time t < 0 actually contradicts standard Big Bang theory, and draws no support from any possible theory of quantum cosmology. Therefore, there can be no violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics in the origin of the universe.

(iii) If one supposes that there was in fact a preexisting spacetime from which the universe came, it still may be possible to resolve any violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics if the negative gravitational energy of the universe balances the positive energy, leaving the universe with a net balance of zero energy (or close enough for quantum uncertainty to allow a long time for "payback" of the energy).

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9911
You definition of god(at Chairboy's request)
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2004, 05:01:41 AM »
I remember some interesting new theory based on a statistical model of random existance. Someone calculated the odds that a molecule code come into random existance and proved it could happen. Given infinite time even the smallest odds are a given.

Unfortunately arguments like this usually boil down to who created the universe and then who created "god". To me god is as per Chairboys first post and also an explanation for things many people cannot comprehend yet alone talk about.

Unfortunately for the Christians out there the whole bible story just doesn't add up. Plus theres plenty of other religions so whos right?