OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 10:41:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why wont God heal amputees? - atheist's responce  (Read 5109 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2011, 04:27:52 PM »

There is a case of an withered optic nerve being immediately healed in Lourdes France.

The advantage for GIC in the case I mentioned of the blind boy getting sight back immediately while venerating the Icon is that it just happened, it was in PA with lots of witnesses and we also have the testimony of Reader Nectarios the Icons care-taker. GIC can investigate this one more easily. He could go there even, look into it and maybe get his faith back. He could go to Hawaii and see the Icon and talk to reader Nectarios or wait till Feb. when he comes back.

I have been around this icon several times for long periods. I have seen a small grey cloud hover just above it and then smelled the strong fragrance of roses and seen with my own eyes drops of oil form and then trickle down. Most people , due to the crush of the crowds have not had the same opportunity to have as much time to see exactly what happens as it happens.

And there are dozens of other healings associated with this icon. A tumor the size of a baseball disappears the very next day when surgery was performed. All they found was a lump of fat, yet all the diagnostics clearly showed a tumor before that... For one example.

So this is not "Just beyond the reach of scientific investigation" ( paraphrase) as GIC thinks. Proof for the most hardened heart is available for the asking.
Well stated. Though  I would add, that the case of the healed optic nerve that had previously been withered was also investigated as well, and was an immediate healing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2011, 12:37:03 AM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.
phlogiston and aether in an heliocentric universe.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2011, 10:22:42 AM »

Why would God heal an amputee? Does the infinitesimal amount of time on this earth and in this life really have any significance in comparison to the endless expanse of eternity? I'm in a wheelchair, but I don't lose any sleep over it.
Logged
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 521



« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2011, 04:36:14 PM »

I think this thread is proof enough how the philosopher is naturally derided by his contemporaries.  It's happened many times in history..

People who think for themselves are never received well by the "religious right" so to speak.  Even though this is a "Religious Topics" area, please feel free to disagree with each other but no one has to be snarky about it.  Wink
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,161

Work hard, pray hard.


« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2012, 09:44:17 PM »

Okay, can you "there's imperical proof of miracles and God's existence" people splain to me why Christ condemns those who seek signs? I always thought that it had to do with freedom and sincerity and that God would not enslave people to faith in Him through an unquestionable miracle.
Logged

I wish you'd all just shut up. Then at least you would appear to be wise. - Job 13:5 ISV
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,295


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2012, 09:53:37 PM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.


Really? You can? I'd love to see you do that. Even Richard Dawkins says that science is still working on the problem of how something came to be from nothing. Of course, I imagine that you're much brighter than Richard Dawkins (and I'm not kidding you about that, nor am I flattering you.)




Selam

That question is an easy one. The Universe was not created, because it always has existed, does exist, and always WILL exist. it might not be as we know it, but it always has and will exist.
Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,295


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2012, 11:39:06 PM »

I tend to avoid this, but im going to expand in a new post what i meant.

This idea of the universe being made from nothing, just does not make sense. If the universe was created at a specific point in time, then what was before? pretime? just doesnt make any sense.


It is like the concept of preheating. you cant preheat, because it was already heating when you started it, and it was even heating(at room temperature) before you even started the oven.

And God, God, by that same logic that says there was a beginning of the universe, must also have a beginning.
Logged
fleur-de-lys
Chestertonian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 80



« Reply #52 on: January 18, 2012, 11:55:16 PM »

That question is an easy one. The Universe was not created, because it always has existed, does exist, and always WILL exist. it might not be as we know it, but it always has and will exist.

This is your own position? Is creation ex nihilo a scholastic accretion or something?

Quote
And God, God, by that same logic that says there was a beginning of the universe, must also have a beginning.

Are you serious?
Logged

Between us, by the peace of God, such truth can now be told;

Yea, there is strength in striking root, and good in growing old.
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,243



« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2012, 12:04:15 AM »

Logic doesn't really solve the problem... whether you say the universe was created or always existent, there is still a bit of a mystery about the how/why/etc.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2012, 02:44:15 PM »

Logic doesn't really solve the problem... whether you say the universe was created or always existent, there is still a bit of a mystery about the how/why/etc.

There still is a lot of questions about the mechanics of the universe from the Planck epoch and earlier...though speaking about concepts like 'always', or anything related to the concept of time, seems kinda strange since 'time' didn't exist, at least certainly not as we currently understand the universe's fourth dimension; trying to talk about 'time' before the big bang is a fallacious attempt to impose our current experience on a system where that experience simply isn't valid.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2012, 03:49:07 PM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.

ROFLOL.  Physicists and philosophers worldwide can now breathe a sigh of relief.

Pray tell, before the Big Bang (or Great Expansion or inflation or whatever you preferred term is), was there something or nothing?  I'm asking because physicists have been arguing about this for a very long time.  I anxiously await your response (oh, and please include some sort of empirical evidence).

At least it's nice to know someone like you has taken such an interest in Monsignor Lemaitre's work!
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2012, 04:03:14 PM »

Logic doesn't really solve the problem... whether you say the universe was created or always existent, there is still a bit of a mystery about the how/why/etc.

There still is a lot of questions about the mechanics of the universe from the Planck epoch and earlier...though speaking about concepts like 'always', or anything related to the concept of time, seems kinda strange since 'time' didn't exist, at least certainly not as we currently understand the universe's fourth dimension; trying to talk about 'time' before the big bang is a fallacious attempt to impose our current experience on a system where that experience simply isn't valid.

There are a lot of questions about the *origins* of the universe, how it is the way it is, why it is the way it is and what will become of it.  These aren't questions about "mechanics."  These are fundamental questions about what the "universe" is. 

I have to laugh at you guys, I really do.  I have a brother-in-law just like you, doctorate in mathematics and everything.  The guy thinks he knows *everything.*  For as much as he knows, he sure lives in a crummy neighborhood.  You'd think he'd take the five minutes it takes him to explain absolutely anything and use it to write a paper for Nature or Journal of Applied Physics and get some kind of prize. 
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,605


« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2012, 04:03:55 PM »

God will heal amputees and has healed amputees in the past.   Sooo....?

There are many people with different ailments and disabilities who God does not miraculously heal for one reason or another, but that does not mean that God cannot heal them, nor does this prove that God has not healed other people with the same ailments and disabilities.  As to why God heals some and not others, that is a mystery, and if we knew exactly how and why God does what He does, we would be greater and more superior than God.  God does not have to "perform" according to the expectations of  skeptical and unbelieving scientists in order for God to prove His existence, nor is proving His existence dependent upon figuring out exactly how and why God does what he does.  It is indeed possible to know God, but impossible to figure Him out.  
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2012, 04:10:25 PM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.
Scientists also could explain that DNA didn't carry heredity, and scientists could also explain how the sun orbited the Earth, also a certian German-Jew of some importance explained the static universe.


Explaining something doesn't make you necessarily right.

Imagine what we think we know, will be proven wrong in 50 years.

PP
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 04:12:08 PM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2012, 07:35:56 PM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.

ROFLOL.  Physicists and philosophers worldwide can now breathe a sigh of relief.

Pray tell, before the Big Bang (or Great Expansion or inflation or whatever you preferred term is), was there something or nothing?  I'm asking because physicists have been arguing about this for a very long time.  I anxiously await your response (oh, and please include some sort of empirical evidence).

At least it's nice to know someone like you has taken such an interest in Monsignor Lemaitre's work!

Would you please define 'before' since I really am not clear what you mean by it in this context. 'Before' and 'after' are concepts tied to our current experience with time, I'm not sure what it means in a system where time doesn't exist.

Logic doesn't really solve the problem... whether you say the universe was created or always existent, there is still a bit of a mystery about the how/why/etc.

There still is a lot of questions about the mechanics of the universe from the Planck epoch and earlier...though speaking about concepts like 'always', or anything related to the concept of time, seems kinda strange since 'time' didn't exist, at least certainly not as we currently understand the universe's fourth dimension; trying to talk about 'time' before the big bang is a fallacious attempt to impose our current experience on a system where that experience simply isn't valid.

There are a lot of questions about the *origins* of the universe, how it is the way it is, why it is the way it is and what will become of it.  These aren't questions about "mechanics."  These are fundamental questions about what the "universe" is. 

Seem like issues of mechanics to me, the big questions about the big bang are things like the relationship between gravity and the other forces and how did matter behave before the separation of these forces at the end of the Plank epoch.

Quote
I have to laugh at you guys, I really do.  I have a brother-in-law just like you, doctorate in mathematics and everything.  The guy thinks he knows *everything.*  For as much as he knows, he sure lives in a crummy neighborhood.  You'd think he'd take the five minutes it takes him to explain absolutely anything and use it to write a paper for Nature or Journal of Applied Physics and get some kind of prize. 

Most of this stuff was published almost a century ago...you're not going to score any points in the academic community for republishing a paper from the 20's. Now if one can figure out the relationship between quantum gravity and quantum mechanics there's probably a Nobel prize in it.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #60 on: January 19, 2012, 07:36:38 PM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.
Scientists also could explain that DNA didn't carry heredity, and scientists could also explain how the sun orbited the Earth, also a certian German-Jew of some importance explained the static universe.


Explaining something doesn't make you necessarily right.

Imagine what we think we know, will be proven wrong in 50 years.

PP

But it does allow you to start the process of removing unnecessary complexity from your model.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
jaroslavkourakin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2012, 11:33:36 PM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.

No you can't, except committing the logical fallacy that something inferior should create something superior. I know you believe that, but it's insane. A bit like a thousand monkeys engineering a human, or something.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 11:34:50 PM by jaroslavkourakin » Logged
jaroslavkourakin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



« Reply #62 on: January 19, 2012, 11:37:00 PM »

As for God healing amputees, ask the question why they lost their limb in the first place. Couldn't God have prevented it?

Or for any other person that is injured or killed.

But we believe God's judgements are just.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 11:38:07 PM by jaroslavkourakin » Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,161

Work hard, pray hard.


« Reply #63 on: January 19, 2012, 11:39:21 PM »

Okay, can you "there's imperical proof of miracles and God's existence" people splain to me why Christ condemns those who seek signs? I always thought that it had to do with freedom and sincerity and that God would not enslave people to faith in Him through an unquestionable miracle.
Logged

I wish you'd all just shut up. Then at least you would appear to be wise. - Job 13:5 ISV
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #64 on: January 19, 2012, 11:40:24 PM »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2012, 01:51:05 PM »

The real issue is that this 'god' seems to avoid leaving any objective and verifiable proof of his or her existence.
You can't prove God exists.

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.

No you can't, except committing the logical fallacy that something inferior should create something superior. I know you believe that, but it's insane. A bit like a thousand monkeys engineering a human, or something.

How is improvement and advancement a fallacy? It would seem that this mistaken belief that you can only create something that is less than yourself is the true fallacy. For example, though I could never solve the Halting Problem personally, my brain simply does not posses the computational ability to do so, I do know, at least in theory, how a computer to solve the problem could be constructed, though we currently lack the required technology (I would need a black hole, for one). And I can fully describe the properties, mechanics, and theoretical foundation for this computer that could solve problems that are theoretically beyond my brain's capabilities; unlike the difference between a monkey's brain and a human brain, which, while not equally capable, are of the same computational class.

And that's just addressing the ability of computational systems to design more capable computational systems, the ability to evolve them is even more powerful because it doesn't require an 'understanding' of the theory or mechanics of the a more capable computational system, it merely requires a means to test and exclude potential but inadequate candidates. I don't know how anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of genetics, evolutionary systems, and computation would be surprised in the slightest by the results of biological evolution.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2012, 02:27:15 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Logic doesn't really solve the problem... whether you say the universe was created or always existent, there is still a bit of a mystery about the how/why/etc.

There still is a lot of questions about the mechanics of the universe from the Planck epoch and earlier...though speaking about concepts like 'always', or anything related to the concept of time, seems kinda strange since 'time' didn't exist, at least certainly not as we currently understand the universe's fourth dimension; trying to talk about 'time' before the big bang is a fallacious attempt to impose our current experience on a system where that experience simply isn't valid.

So is trying to explain or compute such Cosmological events as well Wink  At least in Orthodox we are content to simply explain what we can never understand or experience as being a Mystery.  Science is the brain gone wild, trying to measure everything, whereas somethings are immeasurable, beyond theory and speculation.  The Eastern Orthodox explain that the Godhead is unknowable because human beings are finite and limited, and therefore physically and mechanically impossible to comprehend or experience the Infinity of God. In regards to the Universe, such is the same.  We don't know anything but what is revealed by Grace.  Science is a wonderful tool when it deals with what is tangible, accessible, pragmatic, but when it delves into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, folks are simply and literally over their heads.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #67 on: January 20, 2012, 02:39:36 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Logic doesn't really solve the problem... whether you say the universe was created or always existent, there is still a bit of a mystery about the how/why/etc.

There still is a lot of questions about the mechanics of the universe from the Planck epoch and earlier...though speaking about concepts like 'always', or anything related to the concept of time, seems kinda strange since 'time' didn't exist, at least certainly not as we currently understand the universe's fourth dimension; trying to talk about 'time' before the big bang is a fallacious attempt to impose our current experience on a system where that experience simply isn't valid.

So is trying to explain or compute such Cosmological events as well Wink  At least in Orthodox we are content to simply explain what we can never understand or experience as being a Mystery.  Science is the brain gone wild, trying to measure everything, whereas somethings are immeasurable, beyond theory and speculation.  The Eastern Orthodox explain that the Godhead is unknowable because human beings are finite and limited, and therefore physically and mechanically impossible to comprehend or experience the Infinity of God. In regards to the Universe, such is the same.  We don't know anything but what is revealed by Grace.  Science is a wonderful tool when it deals with what is tangible, accessible, pragmatic, but when it delves into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, folks are simply and literally over their heads.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

The fact that we don't know something does not automatically imply that it is unknowable. Wink We can and will gain a greater understanding of the big bang over time, that's the entire point of projects like the LHC at CERN, to recreate the conditions surrounding the big bang so we can study them...the LHC isn't quite getting us back to the Plank epoch but that will be the next step. Also, I don't think that simply because a dimensionless universe is outside our current experience that we are unable to understand it, yes time is central to our experience from day to day but if we weren't capable of stepping back and looking at problems in a manner more general than our common experience would allow we wouldn't have the level of development in mathematics and physics that we enjoy today.

That's one of the great things that separates science from religion, when we don't know something in science we don't throw our hands in the air and resolve ourselves to ignorance saying it's unknowable, we study it, develop hypotheses, test hypotheses, create models, and eventually learn how it works. As long as gods continue to live in the realm of the unknown on the edges of science their dominion will continue to shrink, day after day, as it has for the past few centuries.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #68 on: January 20, 2012, 02:53:05 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


The fact that we don't know something does not automatically imply that it is unknowable. Wink We can and will gain a greater understanding of the big bang over time, that's the entire point of projects like the LHC at CERN, to recreate the conditions surrounding the big bang so we can study them...the LHC isn't quite getting us back to the Plank epoch but that will be the next step. Also, I don't think that simply because a dimensionless universe is outside our current experience that we are unable to understand it, yes time is central to our experience from day to day but if we weren't capable of stepping back and looking at problems in a manner more general than our common experience would allow we wouldn't have the level of development in mathematics and physics that we enjoy today.

That's one of the great things that separates science from religion, when we don't know something in science we don't throw our hands in the air and resolve ourselves to ignorance saying it's unknowable, we study it, develop hypotheses, test hypotheses, create models, and eventually learn how it works. As long as gods continue to live in the realm of the unknown on the edges of science their dominion will continue to shrink, day after day, as it has for the past few centuries.

No what separates science from religion is science is never content to admit its own limitations, where as religion humbly throws her hands up, but not in hopeless or stupidity, rather the opposite, rather that God or circumstance reveal the truth.

What exactly is CERN recreating? What exactly do speculative computer models and calculations prove exactly? All these are anthropomorphic, the computer is a human creation, it computes what we imagine, not necessarily what actually happened.  Further, the Big Bang is a delightful mathematical computation to speculate the POSSIBLE conditions of the early Universe, but logically our models do not always work, because we were not there to create models of the reality of those events, we are delving into pure speculation and assumption.  
Again, Science is a wonderful tool when it deals with what is tangible, accessible, pragmatic, but when it delves into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, folks are simply and literally over their heads.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 02:53:32 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2012, 04:36:46 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


The fact that we don't know something does not automatically imply that it is unknowable. Wink We can and will gain a greater understanding of the big bang over time, that's the entire point of projects like the LHC at CERN, to recreate the conditions surrounding the big bang so we can study them...the LHC isn't quite getting us back to the Plank epoch but that will be the next step. Also, I don't think that simply because a dimensionless universe is outside our current experience that we are unable to understand it, yes time is central to our experience from day to day but if we weren't capable of stepping back and looking at problems in a manner more general than our common experience would allow we wouldn't have the level of development in mathematics and physics that we enjoy today.

That's one of the great things that separates science from religion, when we don't know something in science we don't throw our hands in the air and resolve ourselves to ignorance saying it's unknowable, we study it, develop hypotheses, test hypotheses, create models, and eventually learn how it works. As long as gods continue to live in the realm of the unknown on the edges of science their dominion will continue to shrink, day after day, as it has for the past few centuries.

No what separates science from religion is science is never content to admit its own limitations, where as religion humbly throws her hands up, but not in hopeless or stupidity, rather the opposite, rather that God or circumstance reveal the truth.

I have seen no evidence that such limitations even exist; 'limitations' are usually nothing more than a lack of imagination.

Quote
What exactly is CERN recreating? What exactly do speculative computer models and calculations prove exactly?

CERN has a lot of on-going projects related to nuclear physics, the most important of which is probably the LHC which is colliding Hadrons (as the name implies) at energy levels comparable to those calculated to have existed at the time of the big bang...just at a much smaller scale. There's a lot more to it than speculative computer models and calculations, those were done years ago by theoretical physicists, the LHC is where experimental physicists are testing various hypotheses theoretical physicists have devised over the past few decades...things like string theory are fun and all and they seem to give us a nice neat model, but they're also meaningless until experimental data verifies their validity.

Currently the big project is proving the existence of the Higgs Boson, they've proved the null hypothesis that it exists to three standard deviations but current standards require it be proven to five; so I doubt the main focus will change until that is accomplished. Ultimately, (and the Higgs Boson is just the first step) they want to further explore the forces and interactions that affect elementary particles with the holy grail being the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity in a theory of quantum gravity. This will help us to begin to understand the laws of physics (and, accordingly, the nature of the universe) as they existed during the Plank epoch...that brief period of time after the big bang but before the laws of physics as we know them today became valid (because the four fundamental forces had not yet separated).

Particle physics may not be the easiest subject in the world to understand and I know that the level of statistical analysis required in this field puts it outside the reach of many people's understanding, but it's hardly magic, it follows scientific processes to perform and validate experiments and arrive at objective conclusions.

Quote
All these are anthropomorphic, the computer is a human creation, it computes what we imagine, not necessarily what actually happened.

In the context of particle physics, they're generally just used to perform the statistical analysis required to acquire the required level of certainty about experiments. If you have a concern it should be with the mathematics, not the computers that just crunch the numbers. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that a computer is anthropomorphic, rather their computational class is limited by the exact same things that limit the computational class of human brains, namely the conditions imposed by the laws of physics. We can devise far more powerful computational classes on paper, the laws of physics as we currently understand them just make building them out of our reach.

Quote
Further, the Big Bang is a delightful mathematical computation to speculate the POSSIBLE conditions of the early Universe, but logically our models do not always work, because we were not there to create models of the reality of those events, we are delving into pure speculation and assumption.

But we can see the effects of the big bang, namely the universe itself. We can see how particles react to each other and we can reconstruct other particles that don't exist today or at least don't exist in quantities and locations that we can detect them. It's not a field of pure speculation and assumption, but a very rigorous field dominated by hard working scientists who have carefully and rationally observed the universe to develop falsifiable hypotheses and then tested those hypotheses using the most exacting scientific standards.

Quote
Again, Science is a wonderful tool when it deals with what is tangible, accessible, pragmatic, but when it delves into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, folks are simply and literally over their heads.

If want to dismiss something as being anthropomorphic, then philosophy and metaphysics are the fields you should be targeting. They have relied on human experience and human prejudice to a point that is almost embarrassing. In fact, I would argue that they are largely nothing more than fanciful assumptions based on the very limited and flawed experience of a small number people who would be considered uneducated and ignorant by modern educational standards. At least scientists have the common decency to present falsifiable hypotheses, the same cannot be said of those who dreamed up philosophy and metaphysics.

Personally, I think they're non-subjects that don't actually express any meaning or truth; a combination of folk wisdom and superstition that has no value other than as a curiosity for cultural anthropologists.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2012, 04:36:55 PM »

As long as gods continue to live in the realm of the unknown on the edges of science their dominion will continue to shrink, day after day, as it has for the past few centuries.

Not necessarily true. Your way of thinking is manipulated by accounting practices rather than science. I sometimes fall victim to this way of thinking. In accounting there always needs to be a result or accountability. So the increase of one always necessitates the decrease of the other. In science once a truth is realized one usually finds a situation where a new horizon is opened to a new set of problems. Usually a set that is more difficult and vast than the one that was just realized. Making us aware of how little we really know. Besides that, you can only draw a conclusion like that if you believe in a finite end to our surroundings.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2012, 04:40:30 PM »

Doesn't the outright refusal to acknowledge even the possibility of God invalidate any hypothesis? Is it not a scientist's job to evaluate all possible explanations in a given subject?

As science has not disproven God, is it then not scientist's job to at least acknowledge the possibility of divine intervention?

Wouln't that be the same as me, if I were a cosmologist, investigating weird movements of bodies to immidately discount Dark Matter because I didn't believe in it?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2012, 04:45:29 PM »

The existence or non-existence of God isn't even scientifically falsifiable anyway, so why does this discussion keep happening? It seems like it definitely falls into not even wrong territory whether you're a believer or not.

Then again, I'm a word scientist, not a beaker and test tube scientist. I have no doubt that God exists; He speaks to me every day. Sometimes I even listen.
Logged

GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2012, 04:56:11 PM »

As long as gods continue to live in the realm of the unknown on the edges of science their dominion will continue to shrink, day after day, as it has for the past few centuries.

Not necessarily true. Your way of thinking is manipulated by accounting practices rather than science. I sometimes fall victim to this way of thinking. In accounting there always needs to be a result or accountability. So the increase of one always necessitates the decrease of the other. In science once a truth is realized one usually finds a situation where a new horizon is opened to a new set of problems. Usually a set that is more difficult and vast than the one that was just realized. Making us aware of how little we really know. Besides that, you can only draw a conclusion like that if you believe in a finite end to our surroundings.

I don't know that what I said must necessarily happen, I do believe it's possible for religion to escape that trap. However, considering how Christianity has commonly been presented in the west over the last few hundred years (persecuting Galileo, opposing Darwin, questioning physics, etc.), I believe this largely has been the case.

So I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm afraid many Christians might; at least in action, if not in theory. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2012, 05:03:56 PM »

Doesn't the outright refusal to acknowledge even the possibility of God invalidate any hypothesis? Is it not a scientist's job to evaluate all possible explanations in a given subject?

As science has not disproven God, is it then not scientist's job to at least acknowledge the possibility of divine intervention?

Wouln't that be the same as me, if I were a cosmologist, investigating weird movements of bodies to immidately discount Dark Matter because I didn't believe in it?

An outright refusal to evaluate evidence because it may lead to an unwanted conclusion would certainly undermine scientific integrity. But refusing to consider a hypothesis because no repeatable, verifiable evidence has been presented on its behalf is perfectly reasonable. Yes, God might theoretically exist, so might the flying spaghetti monster, but I don't see enough evidence of either to justify adding an extra and unnecessary layer of complexity to our current scientific theories.

But I agree it's not impossible for a deity to exist, I just find it to be highly improbable. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2012, 05:28:11 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The fact that we don't know something does not automatically imply that it is unknowable. Wink We can and will gain a greater understanding of the big bang over time, that's the entire point of projects like the LHC at CERN, to recreate the conditions surrounding the big bang so we can study them...the LHC isn't quite getting us back to the Plank epoch but that will be the next step. Also, I don't think that simply because a dimensionless universe is outside our current experience that we are unable to understand it, yes time is central to our experience from day to day but if we weren't capable of stepping back and looking at problems in a manner more general than our common experience would allow we wouldn't have the level of development in mathematics and physics that we enjoy today.

But that is the problem, mathematical equations are not a time machine, they are an ASSUMPTION.  Further, how does anyone know that CERN recreates the Big Bang when the Big Bang itself is entirely a hypothetical at this point, especially considering that it has yet to be proven conclusively because the current models break down as we wind the clock back to the instant just after this speculated event.  Again then, your problem is that you seem to take scientific theory as facts of reality, and that is where I pulled the anthropomorphism card, because HUMAN beings took the observations, human beings speculated the calculations, and human beings postulated the inferences, but none of these can hardly be said to be purely or abstracted facts.  There simply is no such thing, the human mind interprets and shapes all aspects of how we perceive reality, science is therefore no more or less objective than any other human art form, as sophisticated as it may be, we shouldn't be so smug as to assume we can know anything in the absolute sense.
All this science is based currently on human technology which skews the results and observations according to the lens of the observer, in this case of CERN and computers, the human programming determines the outcome, so it entirely an anthropomorphic situation.


Quote

I have seen no evidence that such limitations even exist; 'limitations' are usually nothing more than a lack of imagination.


Wait, maybe you should read that again, because surely you didn't intend to mean what it says.  Of course there are limits, because imagination is not real, but reality is, and subsequently by nature REALITY is the limit.  For example, there are limits to our observations of distant stars and galaxies by the sheer physical distance and scale.  So we device wonderful calculations and technology to speculate on what the raw data of light energy coming to the earth, but the technology is determining the outcome, the results are not entirely objective, but subjective to the human calculations. Computers are not objective, they are human creations and are subjective to the human perspective then, computers can only do what humans tell them.

Quote



Particle physics may not be the easiest subject in the world to understand and I know that the level of statistical analysis required in this field puts it outside the reach of many people's understanding, but it's hardly magic, it follows scientific processes to perform and validate experiments and arrive at objective conclusions.

thank you for the synopsis but I was not asking a literal question about CERN projects, I am well aware of what kinds of experiments they are conducting and what they are hoping to find, you missed my point.  That was an existential question.  CERN is a human creation based entirely on technology. If sometimes my computer doesn't even work well enough to check my email, how can we all be so sure and trustworthy that the computers at CERN or somehow divine and make no mistakes? USER ERROR is the common plague of computing, so why take such divine faith in the results? THAT IS NOT SCIENCE my friend, that is snake-handling at its finest Wink

Quote

In the context of particle physics, they're generally just used to perform the statistical analysis required to acquire the required level of certainty about experiments. If you have a concern it should be with the mathematics, not the computers that just crunch the numbers. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that a computer is anthropomorphic, rather their computational class is limited by the exact same things that limit the computational class of human brains, namely the conditions imposed by the laws of physics. We can devise far more powerful computational classes on paper, the laws of physics as we currently understand them just make building them out of our reach.


Wrong, computers are not limited by the rules of physics, they are limited by the ingenuity of their programmers.  Please stop forgetting that computers are not self-existing entities, they only compute what we tell them, hence they are anthropomorphic machines, that are created by humans to reflect the human mind which is inputted as data.  The decisions the computer makes about the data is entirely based on the programming which is done by who, oh right, people Wink

Quote

But we can see the effects of the big bang, namely the universe itself. We can see how particles react to each other and we can reconstruct other particles that don't exist today or at least don't exist in quantities and locations that we can detect them. It's not a field of pure speculation and assumption, but a very rigorous field dominated by hard working scientists who have carefully and rationally observed the universe to develop falsifiable hypotheses and then tested those hypotheses using the most exacting scientific standards.

No we can't, we observe certain aspects of reality and we make logical inferences and conclusions about the data we record, however, simply stated, we do not witness the effects of the Big Band, or of Black Holes, or any other speculative science.  All the science and work they do is speculative interpretation of the data they collect, the data is humanized by the humanity of the observer, it is never raw.  Raw data is simply the universe as it exists, once people start making interpretations we move out of the realm of pure fact and delve into speculation. I am not necessarily saying the speculations are incorrect, rather I am just trying to point out that they are human creations.

Quote
If want to dismiss something as being anthropomorphic, then philosophy and metaphysics are the fields you should be targeting. They have relied on human experience and human prejudice to a point that is almost embarrassing. In fact, I would argue that they are largely nothing more than fanciful assumptions based on the very limited and flawed experience of a small number people who would be considered uneducated and ignorant by modern educational standards. At least scientists have the common decency to present falsifiable hypotheses, the same cannot be said of those who dreamed up philosophy and metaphysics.

I wasn't being dismissive at all, just realistic.  I LOVE SCIENCE by the way, the nerdier the better, but I accept openly that all we learn in science is as subjective and anthropomorphic as any other human created art form, be it music, architecture, culture, dance, and yes, science.  The original scientists before the 20th century Iconoclast movement understood this intuitively, it is only lately that scientists have been silly enough to think themselves more than they are.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,243



« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2012, 05:29:27 PM »

I want the next thread to be:  "Re: Why wont God heal Asteriktos? - atheist's responce"  Tongue
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2012, 05:34:36 PM »

As long as gods continue to live in the realm of the unknown on the edges of science their dominion will continue to shrink, day after day, as it has for the past few centuries.

Not necessarily true. Your way of thinking is manipulated by accounting practices rather than science. I sometimes fall victim to this way of thinking. In accounting there always needs to be a result or accountability. So the increase of one always necessitates the decrease of the other. In science once a truth is realized one usually finds a situation where a new horizon is opened to a new set of problems. Usually a set that is more difficult and vast than the one that was just realized. Making us aware of how little we really know. Besides that, you can only draw a conclusion like that if you believe in a finite end to our surroundings.

I don't know that what I said must necessarily happen, I do believe it's possible for religion to escape that trap. However, considering how Christianity has commonly been presented in the west over the last few hundred years (persecuting Galileo, opposing Darwin, questioning physics, etc.), I believe this largely has been the case.

So I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm afraid many Christians might; at least in action, if not in theory. Wink

 I'm sure that you and I agree that if science and religion don't coexist. Over time one will certainly end up as fiction. Unfortunately we have instances even in orthodoxy where people take a hard line approach. They think the bible speaks to them in scientific truths. I don't see how they can formulate scientific truths from such vagueness. When God says he created the trees it could mean anything from planting a seed to a big bang. It's more or less for the believer to decide where to begin. The bottom line is that the bible is giving us spiritual truths and not scientific ones. If one follows based of it's spirituality they will not go wrong.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,777


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #78 on: January 22, 2012, 06:58:54 PM »

I never understood how this whole question about where the universe came from and whether it came from nothing or not really has anything to offer to the God debate. I see fallacy on both sides of the spectrum. I think that Christians are guilty for trying to impede on science by making a God-of-the-gaps fallacy and the atheists are guilty for trying to overstep the bounds of science by dreaming of science someday delivering the deathblow to God. But this is impossible. Science is only the study of the natural universe we live in; the mechanics, how it works and functions. Christians and atheists tend to mistake mechanism and agent. You have the Christians trying to extent their agent (God) into the mechanism and this impedes science, such as 6 Day Creationists. But then you have atheists who absurdly believe that if they can explain entirely how the mechanism works, then they will be able to remove the need for an agent. But, that makes no sense. Just because you know how an engine works does not mean that you can disprove the existence of Henry Ford, because the deep questions still remain; did the engine come from an agent? Did it need an agent? Is that agent God and can we know Him? The deepest philosophical questions like this are going to be things that we all personally need to decide for ourselves and will exist no matter what science can tell us and both sides; Christians and atheists, I think are guilty for trying to abuse science in regards to these questions, whether by impeding on it or overstepping its bounds. As for the origin of the universe, even though it is irrelevent to me, I still do think about it quite often because of curiousity. I honestly do not understand how literal 'nothingness' could have existed before the Big Bang and that something could come from nothing, and I do not think it makes sense to believe that God could really create something out of nothing. My personal opinion is that the universe always existed, maybe somehow as a literal part of God, but it existed in a different form than the way it is now. And, instead of actually creating the universe, the Big Bang only changed the form of the universe into the way we see it now. When God created the universe through the Big Bang, I do not think that He literally created anything, only, He changed the form of something through the Big Bang.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,295


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2012, 07:35:37 PM »

I never understood how this whole question about where the universe came from and whether it came from nothing or not really has anything to offer to the God debate. I see fallacy on both sides of the spectrum.

I think that Christians are guilty for trying to impede on science by making a God-of-the-gaps fallacy and the atheists are guilty for trying to overstep the bounds of science by dreaming of science someday delivering the deathblow to God. But this is impossible. Science is only the study of the natural universe we live in; the mechanics, how it works and functions. Christians and atheists tend to mistake mechanism and agent. You have the Christians trying to extent their agent (God) into the mechanism and this impedes science, such as 6 Day Creationists.

But then you have atheists who absurdly believe that if they can explain entirely how the mechanism works, then they will be able to remove the need for an agent. But, that makes no sense. Just because you know how an engine works does not mean that you can disprove the existence of Henry Ford, because the deep questions still remain; did the engine come from an agent? Did it need an agent? Is that agent God and can we know Him?

The deepest philosophical questions like this are going to be things that we all personally need to decide for ourselves and will exist no matter what science can tell us and both sides; Christians and atheists, I think are guilty for trying to abuse science in regards to these questions, whether by impeding on it or overstepping its bounds.

As for the origin of the universe, even though it is irrelevent to me, I still do think about it quite often because of curiousity. I honestly do not understand how literal 'nothingness' could have existed before the Big Bang and that something could come from nothing, and I do not think it makes sense to believe that God could really create something out of nothing.

My personal opinion is that the universe always existed, maybe somehow as a literal part of God, but it existed in a different form than the way it is now. And, instead of actually creating the universe, the Big Bang only changed the form of the universe into the way we see it now. When God created the universe through the Big Bang, I do not think that He literally created anything, only, He changed the form of something through the Big Bang.
that is such a good responce, but very hard to read due to lack or paragraphs

I took the liberty of breaking it up into more managable chunks for you, as a favour, so people can read it easier

as far as the post is concerned, it is a very fair point
Logged
Golgotha
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95



« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2012, 09:11:15 PM »

I've always thought there is a harmony between science and religion. I think it's a mystery. Something we have not been given the comprehension of. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can strive for it and we must. The physical word is connected to the spiritual. I believe this relationship is mutually inclusive. Science can't argue against God and neither should a religion. He gives science it's ability and the same for religion. If something doesn't appear to sync I try not to worry. I know there is no conflict, only compliment, and everything was made to glorify God. I think science can be a way to shatter the box we put God in. Religion and love can break the box the too. We must constantly shatter the boxes we create. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 09:15:55 PM by Golgotha » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #81 on: January 23, 2012, 11:03:52 AM »

I never understood how this whole question about where the universe came from and whether it came from nothing or not really has anything to offer to the God debate. I see fallacy on both sides of the spectrum. I think that Christians are guilty for trying to impede on science by making a God-of-the-gaps fallacy and the atheists are guilty for trying to overstep the bounds of science by dreaming of science someday delivering the deathblow to God. But this is impossible. Science is only the study of the natural universe we live in; the mechanics, how it works and functions. Christians and atheists tend to mistake mechanism and agent. You have the Christians trying to extent their agent (God) into the mechanism and this impedes science, such as 6 Day Creationists. But then you have atheists who absurdly believe that if they can explain entirely how the mechanism works, then they will be able to remove the need for an agent. But, that makes no sense. Just because you know how an engine works does not mean that you can disprove the existence of Henry Ford, because the deep questions still remain; did the engine come from an agent? Did it need an agent? Is that agent God and can we know Him? The deepest philosophical questions like this are going to be things that we all personally need to decide for ourselves and will exist no matter what science can tell us and both sides; Christians and atheists, I think are guilty for trying to abuse science in regards to these questions, whether by impeding on it or overstepping its bounds. As for the origin of the universe, even though it is irrelevent to me, I still do think about it quite often because of curiousity. I honestly do not understand how literal 'nothingness' could have existed before the Big Bang and that something could come from nothing, and I do not think it makes sense to believe that God could really create something out of nothing. My personal opinion is that the universe always existed, maybe somehow as a literal part of God, but it existed in a different form than the way it is now. And, instead of actually creating the universe, the Big Bang only changed the form of the universe into the way we see it now. When God created the universe through the Big Bang, I do not think that He literally created anything, only, He changed the form of something through the Big Bang.

   You make some very good points James. The only thing I disagree with is your possible belief. That the universe preexisted the big bang. Or that matter in general was already there and god fashioned it to his likeness.
     The Creed clearly states that God created out of nothing. To add to this I would just say that Aristotle's philosophy of "what has motion has cause" is at the forefront here. Think about it? Space and time are a result of motion. The only reason for it's existence is a separation from the moment of origin. AKA the big bang. If nobody is there to set something in motion than nothing will move. Ever.. Something has to trigger the onset to time and space or else it wouldn't exist. There was an energy present at the time of the blast. It couldn't have bin gasses because they are a part of matter themselves and can only exist after the bang itself.
   Atheistic minded science as of late has bin meddling with the idea of a preexisting universe that keeps on reincarnating. For the very reason of evading the possibilities of a creator.
  
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 11:21:19 AM by Tzimis » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #82 on: January 24, 2012, 04:21:28 PM »

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.



Would you please define 'before' since I really am not clear what you mean by it in this context. 'Before' and 'after' are concepts tied to our current experience with time, I'm not sure what it means in a system where time doesn't exist.

Of course not, and I don't have to.  Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.  You made the assertion that you could explain the universe.  You haven't posted the resolution of the problem of unification, the nature of matter and why it exists, time, fundamental problems of motion, etc.  Alan Guth at MIT says he has a problem with a universe that doesn't have a beginning.  Burt Ovrut at the University of PA says something can't come from nothing.  You claim you have the answer.  Very well.  Submit the answer and accept your prize.  Stop leaving us in suspense.  We anxiously await enlightenment from your brilliance.


Quote
Quote
Quote
There are a lot of questions about the *origins* of the universe, how it is the way it is, why it is the way it is and what will become of it.  These aren't questions about "mechanics."  These are fundamental questions about what the "universe" is. 

Seem like issues of mechanics to me, the big questions about the big bang are things like the relationship between gravity and the other forces and how did matter behave before the separation of these forces at the end of the Plank epoch.
Quote
I have to laugh at you guys, I really do.  I have a brother-in-law just like you, doctorate in mathematics and everything.  The guy thinks he knows *everything.*  For as much as he knows, he sure lives in a crummy neighborhood.  You'd think he'd take the five minutes it takes him to explain absolutely anything and use it to write a paper for Nature or Journal of Applied Physics and get some kind of prize. 

Most of this stuff was published almost a century ago...you're not going to score any points in the academic community for republishing a paper from the 20's. Now if one can figure out the relationship between quantum gravity and quantum mechanics there's probably a Nobel prize in it.

You found the answers to the fundamental questions of the universe published in a paper in the 1920s?  Please share!  String Theory came much later and revolutionized the way we see the very basis of the universe.  String Theory itself, however, has not been proven.  Is the universe made up of strings or not?  Is there a fundamental minimum limit to distance?  How many dimensions are there really?  Are there other universes or not?  Are we all stuck on some brane, or is that just wrong?  None of these questions have been answered . . . until you found some paper from the 1920s.  (Since you can explain the universe, did you actually travel to the 1920s to discuss it with the author?  Next time, can I come?)

All you've done is discussed mechanics (Big Bang, nature of time, gravity, all the "problems" of modern physics they are trying to resolve at CERN), which you claim are the only things *not* explained.  Why are you hiding the secret? 

You made the claim that you could explain the universe without a deity.  At first I was a little excited that I had discovered the one person who could explain it all.  Right now I'm feeling jilted.  Post the answers, please.  Don't leave us poor silly boobs in ignorance.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 24, 2012, 04:51:44 PM »

Of course not, but I can explain the universe without a deity which renders the question moot.



Would you please define 'before' since I really am not clear what you mean by it in this context. 'Before' and 'after' are concepts tied to our current experience with time, I'm not sure what it means in a system where time doesn't exist.

Of course not, and I don't have to.  Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.  You made the assertion that you could explain the universe.  You haven't posted the resolution of the problem of unification, the nature of matter and why it exists, time, fundamental problems of motion, etc.  Alan Guth at MIT says he has a problem with a universe that doesn't have a beginning.  Burt Ovrut at the University of PA says something can't come from nothing.  You claim you have the answer.  Very well.  Submit the answer and accept your prize.  Stop leaving us in suspense.  We anxiously await enlightenment from your brilliance.


Quote
Quote
Quote
There are a lot of questions about the *origins* of the universe, how it is the way it is, why it is the way it is and what will become of it.  These aren't questions about "mechanics."  These are fundamental questions about what the "universe" is. 

Seem like issues of mechanics to me, the big questions about the big bang are things like the relationship between gravity and the other forces and how did matter behave before the separation of these forces at the end of the Plank epoch.
Quote
I have to laugh at you guys, I really do.  I have a brother-in-law just like you, doctorate in mathematics and everything.  The guy thinks he knows *everything.*  For as much as he knows, he sure lives in a crummy neighborhood.  You'd think he'd take the five minutes it takes him to explain absolutely anything and use it to write a paper for Nature or Journal of Applied Physics and get some kind of prize. 

Most of this stuff was published almost a century ago...you're not going to score any points in the academic community for republishing a paper from the 20's. Now if one can figure out the relationship between quantum gravity and quantum mechanics there's probably a Nobel prize in it.

You found the answers to the fundamental questions of the universe published in a paper in the 1920s?  Please share!  String Theory came much later and revolutionized the way we see the very basis of the universe.  String Theory itself, however, has not been proven.  Is the universe made up of strings or not?  Is there a fundamental minimum limit to distance?  How many dimensions are there really?  Are there other universes or not?  Are we all stuck on some brane, or is that just wrong?  None of these questions have been answered . . . until you found some paper from the 1920s.  (Since you can explain the universe, did you actually travel to the 1920s to discuss it with the author?  Next time, can I come?)

All you've done is discussed mechanics (Big Bang, nature of time, gravity, all the "problems" of modern physics they are trying to resolve at CERN), which you claim are the only things *not* explained.  Why are you hiding the secret? 

You made the claim that you could explain the universe without a deity.  At first I was a little excited that I had discovered the one person who could explain it all.  Right now I'm feeling jilted.  Post the answers, please.  Don't leave us poor silly boobs in ignorance.

Or even the creation of information out of nothing (DNA).
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.166 seconds with 66 queries.