God proof models (1 Viewer)

[magnifier661]

So let's ask this again, and don't use The term "if I believe in God". I'm asking you as if you, without the axiom, "if God exists"

 

[magnifier661]

You created this thread, and it certainly has no positive attributes.

barfo

Good, so you think creation is not positive then? You think baby birth is not positive? You think the sun giving life to a plant not positive?

 

[Further]

Wait a minute... I am not talking about theistic creation. I'm talking about creation like "a baby being born" or "the sun giving life to plants".

That's actually an interesting question. From the point of view of positive and negative in a force type of view, such as magnetism or electricity, I would say yes, creation is a positive in that it is the opposite of nothing. From a moralistic view (helping being positive and hurting being negatives) I would say creation is neither positive or negative but neutral. It tears apart and destroys just as it brings together and builds. Me being alive is nice for me, but it is not a positive from a universe perspective.

I'll have to give this more thought. From the point of view of loved ones or the like, I could see it as positive. It really depends on structure and perspective.

 

[magnifier661]

That's actually an interesting question. From the point of view of positive and negative in a force type of view, such as magnetism or electricity, I would say yes, creation is a positive in that it is the opposite of nothing. From a moralistic view (helping being positive and hurting being negatives) I would say creation is neither positive or negative but nutral. It tears apart and destroys just as it brings together and builds. Me being alive is nice for me, but it is not a positive from a universe perspective.

I'll have to give this more thought. From the point of view of loved ones or the like, I could see it as positive. It really depends on structure and perspective.

Take your time... But remember, in your death, there is creation of other things. Or universally, when a star dies, new creation forms. So keep that in mind when you think about it.

 

[Further]

Take your time... But remember, in your death, there is creation of other things. Or universally, when a star dies, new creation forms. So keep that in mind when you think about it.

If we include that we must also include the solar system collapsing and the universe either contracting into nothing or expanding to obliteration.

 

[magnifier661]

If we include that we must also include the solar system collapsing and the universe either contracting into nothing or expanding to obliteration.

How do you think the universe can contract into nothing? That doesn't seem logical. Are you talking about contracting to singularity? Also, expansion to obliteration is also equally illogical, since the definition itself would mean mass gets destroyed.

Do you think that?

 

[Denny Crane]

So here is the net result of you position.

You have faith that God does not exist and that we got here by random chance even though accredited mathematicians tell you the math does not work. You do not need to do the math because you have faith that you are correct. That is fine if it is your position. Do I understand you correctly?

That is not my position, exactly.

The processes of forming molecules are not random. So every permutation of molecules and atoms that make them up need not be "tried." Water is easy enough to make if you get two hydrogen atoms near an oxygen atom. The valences of the atoms determine how they combine.

The randomness, or chaos actually, is where in space these atoms get close together.

From looking at what's in space, close by and very far away, we can see clouds of gases that are the process of billions of years of chemical and nuclear reactions. We can identify the specific molecules via chromatography.

This article describes how we've detected complex organic compounds in deep space:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/b...complex-organic-molecules-detected-2009-04-22

No creator or designer involved. Not one needed to see these things happen in nature.

To boot, these things are light years away. What we are detecting are complex organic molecules that existed long ago. This might be a clue that the formation of these molecules is not a hard thing to happen and that it doesn't take very long for them to occur.

God of the gaps might seem reasonable, but the gaps have already shrunk to nothing in so many cases. It is truly a matter of a relatively short time before there are no gaps left for anyone to claim as god's.

 

[Further]

How do you think the universe can contract into nothing? That doesn't seem logical. Are you talking about contracting to singularity? Also, expansion to obliteration is also equally illogical, since the definition itself would mean mass gets destroyed.

Do you think that?

contracting to a singularity would give rise to heat and the same issues that affected during the initial moment of the Big Bang, when no laws of nature existed and time were unconstructed. So what would happen at that moment I have no idea. It would make sense that if we sprung from nothing (true creation) then we would return to such order. If we simply came from some othe singularity that expands and contracts or morphs or some crazy thing I can't conceive, well then we would likley return to such state, but that wouldn't really be creation in the first place.

As far as obliteration, I mainly used that term wrong. If we expand forever eventually every atom would be ripped apart to its most rudimentary parts and so although everything in this case would still exist weight-wise, nothing but building blocks would exist.

 

[magnifier661]

That is not my position, exactly.

The processes of forming molecules are not random. So every permutation of molecules and atoms that make them up need not be "tried." Water is easy enough to make if you get two hydrogen atoms near an oxygen atom. The valences of the atoms determine how they combine.

The randomness, or chaos actually, is where in space these atoms get close together.

From looking at what's in space, close by and very far away, we can see clouds of gases that are the process of billions of years of chemical and nuclear reactions. We can identify the specific molecules via chromatography.

This article describes how we've detected complex organic compounds in deep space:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/b...complex-organic-molecules-detected-2009-04-22

No creator or designer involved. Not one needed to see these things happen in nature.

To boot, these things are light years away. What we are detecting are complex organic molecules that existed long ago. This might be a clue that the formation of these molecules is not a hard thing to happen and that it doesn't take very long for them to occur.

God of the gaps might seem reasonable, but the gaps have already shrunk to nothing in so many cases. It is truly a matter of a relatively short time before there are no gaps left for anyone to claim as god's.

"The mechanism could produce even more complex molecules, such as the amino acids that form proteins on Earth, but the signatures of such organics have yet to be found. "

 

[Denny Crane]

"The mechanism could produce even more complex molecules, such as the amino acids that form proteins on Earth, but the signatures of such organics have yet to be found. "

They are found everywhere here on earth. Not just signatures, but the actual molecules.

 

[magnifier661]

They are found everywhere here on earth. Not just signatures, but the actual molecules.

I'm aware of that, but I'm just pointing out that because the concept is still purely theoretical right?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

Amino acids found in space.

We've also found non terrestrial amino acids in asteroids that have found their way to earth.

 

[magnifier661]

contracting to a singularity would give rise to heat and the same issues that affected during the initial moment of the Big Bang, when no laws of nature existed and time were unconstructed. So what would happen at that moment I have no idea. It would make sense that if we sprung from nothing (true creation) then we would return to such order. If we simply came from some othe singularity that expands and contracts or morphs or some crazy thing I can't conceive, well then we would likley return to such state, but that wouldn't really be creation in the first place.

As far as obliteration, I mainly used that term wrong. If we expand forever eventually every atom would be ripped apart to its most rudimentary parts and so although everything in this case would still exist weight-wise, nothing but building blocks would exist.

Coming from nothing isn't a "naturalist" way of thinking. This is why I'm asking the question.

Your concept of "obliteration" is better defined. Thank you

 

[magnifier661]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

Amino acids found in space.

We've also found non terrestrial amino acids in asteroids that have found their way to earth.

Are you saying that life on Earth are from amino acids from asteroids in space?

 

[barfo]

Good, so you think creation is not positive then? You think baby birth is not positive? You think the sun giving life to a plant not positive?

It's pretty clear that some creation is positive and some is negative and some is neutral, depending of course on one's definition and perception of positive.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you saying that life on Earth are from amino acids from asteroids in space?

I wouldn't say that is for sure. What is for sure is they readily form all over the universe. For that reason, empirically observed, there's no reason to expect here on earth to be any different.

If anything, atmosphere, tides, liquid water on the surface, moderate temperature, molten core, magnetosphere, plate tectonics, and the molecular composition of the earth itself may have provided the right stuff for life to evolve.

Scientists trivially cause amino acids to form in the lab. They are recently observing that clay (which doesn't exist in space) seems to assist primitive RNA molecules self replicate.

Gaps are closing.

 

[Further]

Coming from nothing isn't a "naturalist" way of thinking. This is why I'm asking the question.

Your concept of "obliteration" is better defined. Thank you

I don't have a belief one way or the other regarding what everything came from. But all laws of nature including the conservation of mass would not be in play. I have read several theories but have no way of aptly judging their likelihood. The one that I can understand the best is the idea of repeat active expansion and contraction from singularity to singularity, rinse, repeat. M

 

[Denny Crane]

It's pretty clear that some creation is positive and some is negative and some is neutral, depending of course on one's definition and perception of positive.

barfo

The creation of ObamaCare was negative.

Case in point.

 

[magnifier661]

I wouldn't say that is for sure. What is for sure is they readily form all over the universe. For that reason, empirically observed, there's no reason to expect here on earth to be any different.

If anything, atmosphere, tides, liquid water on the surface, moderate temperature, molten core, magnetosphere, plate tectonics, and the molecular composition of the earth itself may have provided the right stuff for life to evolve.

Scientists trivially cause amino acids to form in the lab. They are recently observing that clay (which doesn't exist in space) seems to assist primitive RNA molecules self replicate.

Gaps are closing.

Actually the theory that this earth was "lifed" by asteroids would make more sense. Then the "universe pool" would be factored.

 

[magnifier661]

The creation of ObamaCare was negative.

Case in point.

Lmao!

 

[magnifier661]

I don't have a belief one way or the other regarding what everything came from. But all laws of nature including the conservation of mass would not be in play. I have read several theories but have no way of aptly judging their likelihood. The one that I can understand the best is the idea of repeat active expansion and contraction from singularity to singularity, rinse, repeat. M

You don't see the problem with that theory? Think of entropy readings

 

[barfo]

Gaps are closing.

But, can god exist in an infintesimally small gap? Perhaps as the universe expands, and the gaps are eliminated, god shrinks to a singularity. He becomes infinitely dense, as do his followers.

barfo

 

[Further]

You don't see the problem with that theory? Think of entropy readings

I see the problem, but I have read about it a while ago and it stuck with me. I do think I understand fully but it has to do with the universe being an open universe or a closed universe.

Edit, I think it's called the big crunch

 

[magnifier661]

But, can god exist in an infintesimally small gap? Perhaps as the universe expands, and the gaps are eliminated, god shrinks to a singularity. He becomes infinitely dense, as do his followers.

barfo

You are confused. God is without mass, only atheist can be dense because they are restricted to the natural world!

 

[magnifier661]

I see the problem, but I have read about it a while ago and it stuck with me. I do think I understand fully but it has to do with the universe being an open universe or a closed universe.

Edit, I think it's called the big crunch

That's cool... I just don't agree with the universe contracting into singularity or the beginning point. The expansion concept is more logical imo.

 

[barfo]

You are confused. God is without mass

I don't know. I was always told the catholic church had mass.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

I don't know. I was always told the catholic church had mass.

barfo

Insert drum roll here

 

[magnifier661]

It's pretty clear that some creation is positive and some is negative and some is neutral, depending of course on one's definition and perception of positive.

barfo

Like good vs evil and those caught in the middle? On a perspective standpoint...

 

[Denny Crane]

I see the problem, but I have read about it a while ago and it stuck with me. I do think I understand fully but it has to do with the universe being an open universe or a closed universe.

Edit, I think it's called the big crunch

Expansion of the universe is accelerating. Without some massive force to slow that down, it seems likely it will expand forever.

I don't think the big rip is the answer either. Not everything is moving away from everything else. The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are destined to collide. The fabric of space is expanding, though. But not the space between atoms or between nucleus and electrons. The strong force rules.

That leaves cold and dark.

 

[magnifier661]

Expansion of the universe is accelerating. Without some massive force to slow that down, it seems likely it will expand forever.

I don't think the big rip is the answer either. Not everything is moving away from everything else. The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are destined to collide. The fabric of space is expanding, though. But not the space between atoms or between nucleus and electrons. The strong force rules.

That leaves cold and dark.

I read that "cold" is an impossibility. Meaning negative heat is impossible.