Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/05/2007 04:48:08 PM · #451

Originally posted by jhonan:

The scientific method can be applied to detecting background radiation from the big bang, it is applied to determine the various states that existed immediately after the big bang. Why can it not be applied to the cause of the big bang? I mean, there's only a microsecond or two in the difference... :)

Frustrating, but impossible. It's also much less than a microsecond, it's 10^-23 seconds. At that point all laws of physics break down and we come across an impregnible barrier.

Current physics will tell us it is theoretically (not just practically) impossible to see beyond this point in time.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/05/2007 04:49:23 PM · #452

Somewhat topical editorial cartoon : )

01/05/2007 04:53:57 PM · #453

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
It's simply that the evidence gleaned through more concrete proof than mere "thought experiments" provides a more complete and likely solution than alternate concepts with zero proof and direct conflicts with observable fact.

Which simply stated means we do not understand it... lol

I don't understand how frogs can cause warts either, but scientific research indicates that the culprit is a virus, not frogs. We may not know all there is to know about the virus, but given that there's testable evidence for one explanation and only written stories that conflict with that evidence as the foundation for the other, I'm inclined to go with science. ;-) [/quote]

Who let the frog argument in?...lol The reason these topics get so many comments is we do not understand and an open mind is always best unfortunatly science does not always have an open mind, they can only prove what they can see the rest is a guess based on there beliefs. In the end we can all only hope we choose wisely, if there is a God there is hope, if there is no God there is only death.

Last two questions,
1. Can science prove God exists
2. Can science prove God does not exist

I say they are limited and can not prove either which makes them somewhat limited in knowledge. (sorry if I affended any scientist out there)

01/05/2007 04:53:59 PM · #454

Originally posted by jhonan:

Frustrating, but impossible. It's also much less than a microsecond, it's 10^-23 seconds.[/quote]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the detected remnants of background radiation date to a period several hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, since before that time the universe would not have been transparent to radiation. Someone else can look it up if it matters.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/05/2007 04:57:28 PM · #455

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
With enough data and the ability to process that data anything could be plotted out but we do not have that kind of brain power or equipment to figure it out!

Not if all the data is unknowable. On a basic level, the Heisenberg uncertainly principle is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system. Once you introduce even the tiniest possibility for variation into an experiment, your prospects of predicting the outcome after billions of years goes out the window.

I think you are confused about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principal predicates that it is impossible to accurately MEASURE both the location and the momentum of any particle. That's because the very act of measuring either one alters the other. So, until measurement is attempted, the uncertainty principle is not applicable.
P.S. God doesn't have to measure. He just knows - after all, He is omniscient.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 17:03:38.

01/05/2007 04:59:49 PM · #456

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Who let the frog argument in?

It's an analogy using a similar set of assumptions to demonstrate why your argument doesn't work.

Originally posted by PapaBob:

1. Can science prove God exists
2. Can science prove God does not exist

Since God is defined as UNprovable, how is this even a valid question? Neither can science prove or disprove the existence of Leprechauns. The only way science can indicate that something does not exist is by failing to find any evidence of it. So far, so good.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 17:15:10.

01/05/2007 05:07:28 PM · #457

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
Who let the frog argument in?

It's an analogy using a similar set of assumptions to demonstrate why your argument doesn't work.

Originally posted by PapaBob:

1. Can science prove God exists
2. Can science prove God does not exist

Since God is defined as UNprovable, how is this even a valid question? Neither can science prove or disprove the existence of Leprechauns. Science can only prove things that really do exist.

Science took some particles and made a big bang theory that can not be proved or disproved, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the big bang theory. Where did the matter that caused the big bang come from, the chicken or the egg?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/05/2007 05:08:48 PM · #458

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Last two questions,
1. Can science prove God exists
2. Can science prove God does not exist

I say they are limited and can not prove either which makes them somewhat limited in knowledge. (sorry if I affended any scientist out there)

Lastly two questions,
1. Can religions prove [gG]od(s) exists
2. Can religions prove [gG]od(s) do not exist

I say they are limited and can not prove either which makes them somewhat limited in knowledge. (sorry if I offend anyone who is religious out there)

Sorry - not trying to be snarky, but it seems obvious.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/05/2007 05:10:16 PM · #459

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Science took some particles and made a big bang theory that can not be proved or disproved, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the big bang theory.

I guess I my faith in those particles is reinforced every time I take a step and don't sink into the sidewalk. I have yet, however, to bump into God ...

01/05/2007 05:11:17 PM · #460

Originally posted by RonB:

God doesn't have to measure. He just knows - after all, He is omniscient.

Then why should we be expected to atone for sin or be punished for eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge that He put there knowing full well what would happen? Your assertion kills any possibility of free will since the details of every electron in every atom in every molecule of every neuron in your head are known before, during and after you take any action.

01/05/2007 05:16:55 PM · #461

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
Science took some particles and made a big bang theory that can not be proved or disproved, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the big bang theory.

I guess I my faith in those particles is reinforced every time I take a step and don't sink into the sidewalk. I have yet, however, to bump into God ...

So you only believe what you can see and touch? And of course we all believe in what is seen in photos since they can not be altered in any way! That will certainly limit what you can believe.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 17:19:48.

01/05/2007 05:30:44 PM · #462

Originally posted by PapaBob:

So you only believe what you can see and touch?

Paul is merely saying that particles aren't figments of imagination assumed to exist. It's not really a leap of faith when you can see there's actually something physical to land on.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/05/2007 05:37:47 PM · #463

Originally posted by PapaBob:

So you only believe what you can see and touch?

And perhaps what I can reasonably extrapolate from those things. I can't "see" UV radiation, but there are ways to -- repeatably and predictably -- interact with things I can see which make its properties and relationship to visible light apparent.

I apparently have no similar way way to interact with God, since he is supposed to be everywhere at all times and yet, as I said, I've never bumped into Him myself.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 17:38:08.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

01/05/2007 05:50:30 PM · #464

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
So you only believe what you can see and touch?

Paul is merely saying that particles aren't figments of imagination assumed to exist. It's not really a leap of faith when you can see there's actually something physical to land on.

And I totally agree with what he is saying, it is very easy for us all to believe in what we can see and touch but it is harder or impossible for people to understand or believe in what they can not see or touch. In our lives we believe in all sorts of things that exist that we have only heard about from people we consider reliable, for me the Bible has proved to be a reliable source with historical facts. Some things have to be taken in faith and we all make our own decision to either believe or not to believe.

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/05/2007 05:51:27 PM · #465

Originally posted by scalvert:

It's simply that the evidence gleaned through more concrete proof than mere "thought experiments" provides a more complete and likely solution than alternate concepts with zero proof and direct conflicts with observable fact.

I'm curious about these direct conflicts with observable fact. This makes it sound like God has been disproven, but I missed the huge ripple through society this would have caused.

And the vast majority of these theories do NOT have 'concrete' proof, but, at most, seemingly supportive evidence.

-- C, ES

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/05/2007 05:54:36 PM · #466

Sorry I need to cut this short, I am getting ready to get in the car and believe it will start, I can not see it start but if it does I will see the effects right away as I will not be walking to the store.

Thanks for all the fun, carry on with out me!

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/05/2007 06:15:30 PM · #467

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

As for spirit/mysticism etc: if there is something that bends the rules of the universe just for us, then it ought to be detectable.

Why must everything be "detectable"? Maybe the human soul exists outside the physical realm.

The problem I have with many of the atheists' arguments is that they are basically saying "If there's no physical evidence for X, and I can't detect X with scientific instruments, etc., then X must not exist."

I don't see the logic in that.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/05/2007 06:17:03 PM · #468

Originally posted by PapaBob:

... for me the Bible has proved to be a reliable source with historical facts.

And quite a bit of fiction too. I've read many novels which are just chock-full of historical facts -- that doesn't make every word the gospel truth.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/05/2007 06:18:00 PM · #469

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As for spirit/mysticism etc: if there is something that bends the rules of the universe just for us, then it ought to be detectable.

Why must everything be "detectable"? Maybe the human soul exists outside the physical realm.

The problem I have with many of the atheists' arguments is that they are basically saying "If there's no physical evidence for X, and I can't detect X with scientific instruments, etc., then X must not exist."

I don't see the logic in that.

What's the logic in saying that an undetectable thing does exist?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/05/2007 06:28:41 PM · #470

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

I'm curious about these direct conflicts with observable fact. This makes it sound like God has been disproven, but I missed the huge ripple through society this would have caused.

Galileo caused a nice stir in his day. A more modern "ripple through society" would be Evolution. I really don't want to rehash the mathematical impossibility of the Great Flood or such silliness in Genesis as creating plants and trees before there was sunlight (but you can search the forums for earlier debates in Rant).

BTW, no less a biblical authority than Pope John Paul II accepted evolution, yet the current Pope rejects it. Long held beliefs don't just instantly disappear in the face of scientific evidence, no matter how compelling.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 18:51:43.

Apple iPhone 5

01/05/2007 06:45:42 PM · #471

Originally posted by GeneralE:

What's the logic in saying that an undetectable thing does exist?

Like dark matter? It's existence is inferred from the effects it causes. It has never been detected directly.