Evidence for God from Science

Revolutionary wrote:If I whacked you over the head with a shovel, I'm sure that we could both agree that the mass that makes up that shovel is a solid "faculty" to conduct our basis of observation..... I wouldn't however argue that gravity was the cause behind it! Well, not unless we indulge in the definition of gravity!

Now, if we're done trying to be witty, if you desire to enter the discussion, can you begin by actually addressing something?

K wrote:Address something? Like I did with my first post while you yourself were attempting to play the "witty" one.

Sorry, it was not my intention to rain on your parade. But, you miss the point, but it was quite sharp so can't expect dullness to pick up on it. Again, I apologise... I'm really not witty though you see it. I'll leave you be the witty one.

Nonetheless, to observe requires an observer which is more than mere mass. To observe correctly, requires faculties that are tuned into the truth. Observing faculties evolved by chance, built primarily for survival rather than truth... so how is it we know what we know is true. Re: Mass, such is not concerned with matters of truth, let alone what is morally good or bad. It has not intentions to do this or that. Mass, is simply mass.

I keep waiting for a punch line.... Do you have a point or are we going to begin creating a fantastical arena like a matrix? Oh what fun!

There is no punch line. If you've missed the substance of what I've said, do yourself a favour and get a copy of Plantinga's Warrant and Proper Function.

And no, that isn't an Christian apologetical book, but rather a hard and thoughtful philosophy in the area epistemology.

I'll leave you to your cake. Sorry if you felt I stole I piece. It just takes talking some sense I suppose. (please put that shovel down!)

Kurieuo wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:If I whacked you over the head with a shovel, I'm sure that we could both agree that the mass that makes up that shovel is a solid "faculty" to conduct our basis of observation..... I wouldn't however argue that gravity was the cause behind it! Well, not unless we indulge in the definition of gravity!

Now, if we're done trying to be witty, if you desire to enter the discussion, can you begin by actually addressing something?

K wrote:Address something? Like I did with my first post while you yourself were attempting to play the "witty" one.

Sorry, it was not my intention to rain on your parade. But, you miss the point, but it was quite sharp so can't expect dullness to pick up on it. Again, I apologise... I'm really not witty though you see it. I'll leave you be the witty one.

Nonetheless, to observe requires an observer which is more than mere mass. To observe correctly, requires faculties that are tuned into the truth. Observing faculties evolved by chance, built primarily for survival rather than truth... so how is it we know what we know is true. Re: Mass, such is not concerned with matters of truth, let alone what is morally good or bad. It has not intentions to do this or that. Mass, is simply mass.

I keep waiting for a punch line.... Do you have a point or are we going to begin creating a fantastical arena like a matrix? Oh what fun!

There is no punch line. If you've missed the substance of what I've said, do yourself a favour and get a copy of Plantinga's Warrant and Proper Function.

And no, that isn't an Christian apologetical book, but rather a hard and thoughtful philosophy in the area epistemology.

I'll leave you to your cake. Sorry if you felt I stole I piece. It just takes talking some sense I suppose. (please put that shovel down!)

Did anyone else get the substance that I apparently missed.... Just curious....
Here's a challenge.... Would anyone else care to demonstrate the substance to what has been said by Kurieuo?

Is this a diversionary tactic, where you send bare nonsense in to bury a discussion?

Rev wrote:
I can't discard a single life or mind, or leave even just one behind..... I know how to tangibly accomplish this type of expression for all of humanity....

Without the bad poetry, please explain. What do you mean? How can you accomplish whatever you think you can accomplish?

Look up this book: http://www.amazon.com/Warrant-Proper-Fu ... pd_sim_b_4

Get a copy. Read it. And then we'll discuss more.

RickD wrote:

Rev wrote:
I can't discard a single life or mind, or leave even just one behind..... I know how to tangibly accomplish this type of expression for all of humanity....

Without the bad poetry, please explain. What do you mean? How can you accomplish whatever you think you can accomplish?

No bad poetry, it's the truth of how I feel with every fiber of my being.... Is that somehow threatening to you, is that why you clipped it out when quoting me?

I would love to share this, but as you might imagine, it's lengthy and quite heady... I will put some points together for a discussion and start a new thread....

BTW, a revolutionary doesn't automatically equate to force or violence.... Peace and love would be a revolutionary act of the mind in our current construct.

No bad poetry, it's the truth of how I feel with every fiber of my being.... Is that somehow threatening to you, is that why you clipped it out when quoting me?

No, it was just funnier with the rhyme.

I would love to share this, but as you might imagine, it's lengthy and quite heady... I will put some points together for a discussion and start a new thread....

I look forward to this. But please start with what you believe. I'm not saying you have to assert something. A belief is fine.

RickD wrote:So, instead of believing in a loving, personal God, who loved the world He created so much, that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life, a God that cared so much about you personally Revolutionary, that Jesus Christ died was buried, and was resurrected, so that if you trust in Him, you will have eternal life, instead of believing in him, you believe in mass?

Got it!

Mass of what?

Mass cannot save you, nor aid you in life, nor get a person thru the hard times of life. Mass often crushes the life out of love and peace...
-
-
-

Revolutionary wrote:We can actually change the form of mass but it can never be destroyed.... The observable and testable properties of mass actually give a definitive outline that it has always existed in one form or another for all of eternity. This is a purely objective and highly critical scientific observation of what mass is.
In this observable arena, mass does not have a cause, no matter how you dice it up.... Because you lack the ability to comprehend an arena of eternal mass, doesn't prove it needed to be created.
I'll add that I'm not indulging in proving it wasn't created, I'm just proving that we don't have even a smidgen of proof that it was!!!

When you speak of mass and that it cannot be destroyed, you mean mass/energy right? Or well, you do not mean the rest mass, right?

1over137 wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:We can actually change the form of mass but it can never be destroyed.... The observable and testable properties of mass actually give a definitive outline that it has always existed in one form or another for all of eternity. This is a purely objective and highly critical scientific observation of what mass is.
In this observable arena, mass does not have a cause, no matter how you dice it up.... Because you lack the ability to comprehend an arena of eternal mass, doesn't prove it needed to be created.
I'll add that I'm not indulging in proving it wasn't created, I'm just proving that we don't have even a smidgen of proof that it was!!!

When you speak of mass and that it cannot be destroyed, you mean mass/energy right? Or well, you do not mean the rest mass, right?

Are you trying to make a suggestion towards what I mean, or are you asking me a question?

The direction this discussion can take seems promising? HA!

How far is your mind willing to travel, and how dimensional are it's capabilities?

As I described the honeycomb structure, it's very misleading..... Lets call it a test! Hello....hello.........hello................hello..........
It's the developmental stage in the beginning, grasping a two dimensional model. While brilliant when examining a graphene, it does not encompass a balanced three dimensional model.
When we begin to discuss an infinite arena that is infinitely dimensional, we have to begin our discussion surrounding tetrahedral geometry, balance it through dihedral symmetry and apply it to form a pyritohedron/tetradecahedron structure.
The recursive patterns are quite brilliant, even though we would find immediate 'irregularities' between concentric tetrahedral points making up the gravitational fields between these 'cells' of 'physical' mass, we would find balance and symmetry as we advance our field of scope.

One of the problems concerning general relativity when applied to a single cell (universe), is that radiant energy can simply travel outside of the 'physical' parameters of this cell and it continues to do so. We can just expand our scope to encompass all of it and it still remains invariant; so essentially we are merely indulging in just that.

One of the major questions is if it all continues to expand leaving a void in it's place giving rise to a field by which "new" particles are formed, or if it once again collapses upon itself.... The idea of it overcoming the expansion of radiant energy becoming that single point of 'all' mass (no mass escaping) is beyond the imagination but not impossible.... What I find impossible is the finite point, it doesn't account for the infinite arena that it is both expanding into and contracting from.... I discussed this earlier using the infinite void.
The other point of expanding away and leaving a field giving rise to a new big bang, gives a similar result.... You are also going to have an infinite number of such fields which disrupts the minds ability to view it as a single direction expansion..... Exponentially, the field vectors (not on a sheet of paper, it's full dimension) are increased which would account for acceleration, within an eternal arena.... Unless I'm seriously missing something, this simply doesn't work!!!

I'm not going to feed you the answer, I want to know how your mind works...... I've given plenty to think about.

It was a question, kind of introductory one to start some talk on science. But, i looked back many pages in this thread and found that Byblos tried to talk with you about science, physics and was not succesful.

Concerning my mind, yes, i can imagine infinitely large space, or infinite number of spaces.
Now I will explore you mind: can you imagine a space which is curved? Do not think that this curvature can be looked at from the outside. There is not outside. And there is no beyond. If you would travel in a straight line, one day you would come to the same point you started from. Unlike in some infinite universe with zero curvature where you would never come back to where you started.

I will say to inform you that I did not understand half of your post. I tried but either you weren't clear or ...

However in some post of yours back several pages you wrote

Everywhere I search this observable world, I am dumbstruck by the brilliance and perfection of it.

What is brilliant and perfect on this world? Is it indeed perfect everywhere you look? Is it e.g. perfect that asteroids may hit our Earth? Is it perfect they exist and are endangering us? This is just one example.

1over137 wrote:It was a question, kind of introductory one to start some talk on science. But, i looked back many pages in this thread and found that Byblos tried to talk with you about science, physics and was not succesful.

And I very much agree with this, every attempt by Byblos to talk about science or physics was indeed extremely unsuccessful…..

1over137 wrote:Concerning my mind, yes, i can imagine infinitely large space, or infinite number of spaces.
Now I will explore you mind: can you imagine a space which is curved? Do not think that this curvature can be looked at from the outside. There is not outside. And there is no beyond. If you would travel in a straight line, one day you would come to the same point you started from. Unlike in some infinite universe with zero curvature where you would never come back to where you started.

I will say to inform you that I did not understand half of your post. I tried but either you weren't clear or ...

I think curvature is pretty basic where mass and gravity is concerned, but I don’t think you understand the basics concerning the dynamic or temporal properties by which it has been theorized.
Lets indulge it and accept such a model for a moment and for the sake of argument that there is no outside or beyond it.

This isn’t a static model, we have calculated through redshift that all of the ‘physical’ mass is expanding away in all directions as well as accelerating. By your logic, we have to conclude through curvature that it is either expanding into itself which as a result, brings us back to a point of contracting; or that the curvature itself by which it is ‘bound’ is expanding.
In the first example, it describes a crunch where all mass will once again become the very form by what we are currently observing ‘started’. It does however only demonstrate and solidify a perpetual model that simply pulses with no beginning and no end, for an eternal reference of ‘time’.

In the second example the dynamics of gravity by which this curvature is formed begin to degrade through an interpolation in spatial density. Mass is what composes this curvature where gravity itself forms the dimension of ‘space’. This is basic physics, the gravity of two objects is both proportionate to the mass itself as well as the distance between them. In an expanding arena, the dynamics of force by which the curvature itself is bound in form begin to diminish where inevitability takes it's course, and the concept of there being no outside or beyond begins to fail as well.

And wouldn’t you know it, we’re back at the point of what I was discussing….. Shall we?

1over137 wrote: I will say to inform you that I did not understand half of your post. I tried but either you weren't clear or ...

However in some post of yours back several pages you wrote

Revolutionary wrote:Everywhere I search this observable world, I am dumbstruck by the brilliance and perfection of it.

What is brilliant and perfect on this world? Is it indeed perfect everywhere you look? Is it e.g. perfect that asteroids may hit our Earth? Is it perfect they exist and are endangering us? This is just one example.

There was a time when our earth lacked our dense atmosphere and it was literally pummeled by billions and billions of meteoroids…..
All we have to do is look at our moon to understand this, and then examine the earth’s topography to see the many large scars it still holds.
Now we have quite a brilliant ‘coincidence’ where life is concerned; the atmospheric properties necessary for supporting life, as well as the properties that are contributed to the atmosphere by that life, produce a dense/oxygen rich atmosphere that essentially halts that onslaught of meteoroid impact. When a meteoroid enters the atmosphere, it becomes a meteor by the immense friction heat of compression where our oxygen enables it to burn up well before it impacts. Without such a perfect balance and every event of meteoroid impact leading up to it, life would otherwise be unable to exist.

Now lets examine further back to where the earth was without an atmosphere and obviously devoid of life….. Billions and billions of meteoroids impacted the surface of our planet, and brought with it an immense amount of cosmic/elemental information in material, until our planet was in the perfect form and properly ‘seeded’ in order to start the processes that would bring balance and stasis in order to support life.

So yes, once again I am dumbstruck by the many brilliant and perfect 'coincidences' that manage to support life.

I will also add something about intellect….. We are scratching upon the surface of potential in what can be achieved…. Look at us chasing our tails round and round for ridiculous trinkets, trashing lives and minds along with our environment, it’s insulting…. If we came together as a focus to address problems and potential hazards (which would be highly rewarding, motivating and inspiring), we could solve anything that we would ever have to face; including taking the necessary precautions towards preventing an asteroid from demolishing us.
If we can’t understand how to balance our own intellect to match the brilliance and perfection surrounding it; I suppose it’s just another part of the perfection where we don’t deserve to be it’s steward.

Time will tell.

Please for now no more posts, it's my turn now, ok? Please be patient with me as I may not reply the same day. Thank you.

Revolutionary wrote:

1over137 wrote:It was a question, kind of introductory one to start some talk on science. But, i looked back many pages in this thread and found that Byblos tried to talk with you about science, physics and was not succesful.

And I very much agree with this, every attempt by Byblos to talk about science or physics was indeed extremely unsuccessful…..

You made assertions, I called you out on them, you provided nothing to back them up. I'd say that's the very definition of an unsuccessful attempt at discussion.
I guess we're all in agreement then.