Proof of NO God

He could. And then if you argue that He couldn't lift the stone, he would prove you wrong. And if you then said he couldn't create a stone that He couldn't move, he would. Quite simple, really.

 

or banjo

 

Le Blanc Rabbit Col, your playing with words. Its not an argument against anything but merley a meta-rational twist with words which doesnt relate even remotely to logic.

I might as well ask you: Do you know geometry? Well then, could you draw a rectangle with 3 sides, or a triangle > 180 degrees? O you cant, well then you dont know math, do you? The sentence negotes and refutes its self.

Secondly, the question is relative depending on whom its asked.
Withing the islamic faith, God doesnt go into his creation (lift rocks, be everything or any other pantheistic statement) nor is He by any means within the creation which makes it just stupid to inquire about something (lift a rock, eat a burrito or any other form of this "paradox") that is done by a creature not a Creator.

 

yes, that too.

 

cabdirazzaq (I can still call you cabdizzle for short right? )

That was a very good post, please continue making more like it!

 

haha dont be angry at me im just trying to spark conversation...
In truth. with the evidence presented to us god is just as if not more likely as aliens or anything else you can dream up. of course this is just an argument of words, nobody can ever win this argument, that is unless they were to kill themselves...

 

Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor.

 

The three sided rectangle is a tuff one but you can draw a triangle with angles = >180 degrees in spherical geometry...do it on globe, its really easy.

 

Haha! Euclidean geometry. Clever. :H

 

Haha, thanx. Wernt we suppose to engage in a cs pcw like two years ago, what ever happened to that. The great legend backed off ey?...

 

Lol ... I don't remember anything about that, but I'm more than willing anytime. ^_^ You should check out our forums, http://ee.snine.net/. We should have a scrim. (We're a CS:Source clan though, not 1.6/GoldSrc)

 

You can believe what you want, and let me do the same. I didn't mean to offend you or make you sad, that is just what I believe. I am happy with my position and even read that Buddha once said not to worry about God, it's a waste of time.

 

Some things are just too abstract or of such an extreme size and complexity that they are likely to stay unanswered for a long time. If the big bang began as a singularity, which is very aptly described in John 1 1 in the bible, and almost word for word repeated in the Hindu Vedas, with, I believe, Brahman being written in place of God the only change, then it is profoundly unprovable what preceded the big bang. Einstein was no fool, and he said that both religion and science are necessary, in his view. I'll stick with that, for now.

 

According to the latest in superstring theory, before the big bang, there were other big bangs. There have been many throughout history, and the "cosmic background radiation" that we recieve from what we thought before might have been bouncing off the ends of the universe, are actually simply microwaves and other radiation that were released from other big bangs far, far away from our universe. You ask why was there a big bang? Big bangs occur when two branes of the universe collide, which creates matter (and antimatter) in enormous amounts and flings it in every which way.

But definitely there is much wisdom in the Dalai Lama's words.

 

the dali lama had it exactly right in that one. it really doesn't matter that much what we try to prove or disprove, of which all we think we know about begins and ends in speculation any way. (which is to say matters of the nontangable, matters of belief)

nontangable friends are good to have, just like tangable friends are,
but the connection between priorities and probabilities,
often poorly understood,
has more to do with what we actualy experience.

and the kindness or lack of it, of the world arround us,
is no more nor less, then the consensus,
of how and what all our priorities togather,
the ones we actualy live by,
contribute to it.

=^^=
.../\...

 

It is hard for me to grasp string theory, though I get the general concept and it makes sense. My understanding is that there are a number of different, conflicting string theories, though. Five or so? Are they loops or just open ended lines? Are there a limited range of types or infinite? What is the range of frequencies they resonate on? etc. I also have not yet grasped the eleven dimensions idea... four, okay, I can compute a dimension after 3D, and even time as another, but eleven? If there were many big bangs, then they must have agreed that the universe will indeed stop expanding, and then will reverse itself and start to shrink. I had not been aware that they even knew that for sure. Big bang theory is great, but a singularity is impossible to attach a location to, it's everywhere, and hard to assign a time period to. How long can a singularity exist? A googleplex of millenia? A nanosecond? Is there a difference? I know that at 0 degrees Kelvin, time becomes irrelevent, since nothing is moving.
There can never be proof of no God. Many people are very smug and even condescending in their assertions and proclamations that they are totally certain that there is no God, and that science backs that up. I disagree, but I am not sure, maybe there is no God. I don't know, and I can't understand how they can be so sure. I do know that there are numerous examples of scientific studies which showed positive results when testing for paranormal phenomena. That tells me that there are forces at work which science has yet to discover, pin down, or understand. That is something I could say I feel sure about, scientists don't know it all by a long shot. They know this is true. It is the psuedo-scientists who are so sure of themselves, and forget about the word theory.

 

Not true. At absolute zero there is still 1/2 quantum vibrational energy,

Science is officially agnostic. It does not stand behind anything that cannot be measured or tested.

 

I admit that quantum physics is not my forte. So, what does that mean in relation to time? Is 1/2 quantum doing anything that has a measurable time span or half-life?
Does the element of lead have a half-life? Just asking, I read it doesn't, and you seemed like a person who might know.
Agnosticism is pretty close to my view, I don't know, and feel it is immeasurable, so I agree with science there.
What about the singularity pre-big bang? Is time at all relevent at that point? I thought not myself, but don't know.

 

Depends on the Isotope:

Isotope/ Half-life
214Pb - 26.8 min
210Pb - 22.3 years
211Pb - 36.1 min
207Pb - stable
206Pb - stable

Of course ultimate stability depends on the half-life of its subatomic components. The proton is theorized to have a half-life of 10^31 - 10^36 years. Recent experiments at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan indicate a lower bound for the proton half-life of 10^35 years. Since this is a lower bound, it is consistent with the nonexistence of proton decay. That is, the proposal that the mechanisms that also give rise to proton decay are responsible for baryogenesis appears to be the null result experimentally.

I think time would be relatively unaffected by a sudden disappearence of all matter, since it is matter that distorts time not space, yet without matter time would have little relevence or context to us.

 

That's okay, it's hard for string theory to grasp you too.

There have always been different theories of gravity, of black holes, of space and time, and of the primary substance that makes up the universe.

String theory is no exception.

None of them are necessarily correct. They are simply theories. However, just like the theory of gravity, some major breakthroughs have been had in string theory that are groundbreaking enough to bring the majority of the scientific community to accept many of the concepts behind string theory.

I'm not a string theorist so I'm not qualified to answer.

But, the more popular theories have both loops and open-ended lines (of the Planck length and, I think, the 2*pi arclength), and I have heard of at least one theory that includes curves.

I believe there is only a limited range of types.

And I have no clue about the frequencies.

This is something that I've become very interested in ... especially once I found a program on the web called MagicCube 4D. It's essentially a Rubik's Tesseract -- or a four-dimensional Rubik's Cube. Since then, they've come out with MagicCube 5D, which is of course a five-dimensional Rubik's Cube. And they even have algorithms to solve them. ^_^ Some brave souls have solved both cubes just by themselves. (Using the algorithms of course)

To me, I find no difficulty in understanding the logic behind multiple dimensions (M-theory has 11 dimensions if I'm not mistaken -- superstring theory has 26 "branes" which are not exactly dimensions but are likened to them often).

I can't conceptualize past the 5th or 6th spatial dimension, but if I really sat down and tried, I think I might be able to get an idea in my head.

That's not necessarily true either. The way I understand it, gravity can actually descend to exactly zero over a great enough distance, and the distance between parts of the universe can potentially spread that far apart before the collective gravity of the universe could prevent it from expanding.

That's why we get the microwaves from other big bangs -- perhaps even big bangs that have mostly imploded.

Not really.

Time isn't really "the fourth dimension," because it isn't spatial. I.e. time couldn't be considered a brane in superstring theory. It must either be something completely different, or perhaps it is an all-pervading super-universal force that regulates change and the rate thereof.

Either way, if there is no change in a singularity, can there really be time?

Exactly. No change = no time. Time is dependent on change.

I also happen to know that there are numerous examples of scientific studies which are wrong.

Sometimes, studies are not done correctly. Often times, in paranormal "studies," there are too many factors which are left as variables which could affect the target variable, or perhaps even too many control groups.

And also, many studies are based on probabilities, especially when dealing with quantum physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Studies based on probabilities can lead to unexplained errors, but it's the best we can do.

My dictionary only has one entry for "pseudo-scientist"

1. n. See imbecile.

OMG BLASPHEMER! lol

See, who knows what the truth is? Certainly not some person who claims to have it. Plato said it best: Those who claim to know, know nothing.

There isn't one (according to the string theory version I've been reading about at least).

Big bangs are created spontaneously when branes get close enough to collide. What makes them do that, I have no clue.