burden of proof and existence of god
- Thread starter Phaedrus
- Start date
What you're getting at is the "Big Crunch" theory. This has more to do with the total mass of the Universe than it does specifically with black-holes. If the total mass of the Universe is large enough the Universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse, if not the Universe will continue to expand forever.
~Raithere
whatsupyall,
As one of the moderators, I remind you that continued personal abuse will not be tolerated in this forum. Attack posters' arguments by all means, but do not attack posters personally. You have already been asked to modify this behaviour once.
--------------
Secondly, your main point seems to me to be this:
<i>Bottom line here is that we exist, we live, and life is a force we cannot detect in which we label as "soul" and you are entitled to call the force "subatomic monosodium glutamate chemical substance", or "chemical reactor quantum particle" or "giant purple squid monkey" YOU CAN CHANGE THE NAME HOWEVER YOU PLEASE, BUT THE FACT HERE IS THAT IT EXIST</i>
It also seems to me that so far you have given no good reasons why anybody should believe this is true rather than adopting the position that there is no soul. Perhaps you'd like to explain <b>how you know</b> we have a soul, that life is a force and so on.
As one of the moderators, I remind you that continued personal abuse will not be tolerated in this forum. Attack posters' arguments by all means, but do not attack posters personally. You have already been asked to modify this behaviour once.
--------------
Secondly, your main point seems to me to be this:
<i>Bottom line here is that we exist, we live, and life is a force we cannot detect in which we label as "soul" and you are entitled to call the force "subatomic monosodium glutamate chemical substance", or "chemical reactor quantum particle" or "giant purple squid monkey" YOU CAN CHANGE THE NAME HOWEVER YOU PLEASE, BUT THE FACT HERE IS THAT IT EXIST</i>
It also seems to me that so far you have given no good reasons why anybody should believe this is true rather than adopting the position that there is no soul. Perhaps you'd like to explain <b>how you know</b> we have a soul, that life is a force and so on.
What you're getting at is the "Big Crunch" theory. This has more to do with the total
raithere, in man's mind, we generally only accept one universe and lack the ability to apply scale to it. "Black holes", whatever they may be known as exist not only "out there" but perhaps on a smaller scale. Think about the bang power contained within the atomic bomb as it releases its energy outward. Someone said "as above, so below"
raithere, in man's mind, we generally only accept one universe and lack the ability to apply scale to it. "Black holes", whatever they may be known as exist not only "out there" but perhaps on a smaller scale. Think about the bang power contained within the atomic bomb as it releases its energy outward. Someone said "as above, so below"
Re: What you're getting at is the "Big Crunch" theory. This has more to do with the total
Still, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you explain your hypothesis further?
~Raithere
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'apply scale to it'.
It is unlikely that they exist naturally on a smaller scale than that of a star. A star is able to collapse into a black hole because the fusion process transmutes lighter elements into heavier elements but is able to resist collapse because of the energy output. Eventually the process burns down and the energy output is no longer able to resist the gravitational force and the star collapses. Black-holes could indeed occur on a larger scale but on a smaller scale the gravitational effect of the requisite matter would not be strong enough. Though I suppose there may be some naturally occurring effect somewhere where matter would be compressed by some other natural occurrence like in the shock-wave of a nova but I have a feeling such occurences would be rather rare.
Still, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you explain your hypothesis further?
~Raithere
hmmmm, not sure how to explain; the conception of stars/universes condensing into a black hole is enormus -- think of all the matter involved! what if the same natural forces that allow those circumstances are the ones that apply, on perhaps a lesser scale, to many common things we can see/understand? are the laws of nature any different for an apple falling from a tree or the balance of forces that seem to keep the moon from falling into the earth, earth into the sun etc. mathmaticians would consider logrithms, musicians the octave as it moves from one to the next . . . . don't mean to think too hard today, just simple observations, dave
Originally posted by whatsupyall
Because the evidence I presented isnt valid to you, then I can also say "see, you have no proof Shakespeare exist, you have no proof of anything you say"...
Indeed, many are believers of God..thank you for claryfying that FACT...(because you want to talk about "general" view and statistics (but in the convo b4 you insist that "general view dont matter" but now you are coming back to statistics again, YOU ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY, well then, want to talk about succesfull people, the rich, powerfull world leaders? In which atheists are subject to..what their beliefs are?
XELIOS...DO YOU HAVE BRAIN CELLS? ****, DO YOU THINK WE CAN DETECT AND EXPLAIN HOW LIFE EXIST? ****...YOUR DENYING THE FACT THAT NO SCIENTIST IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS, EVEN FROM GATHERING AMINO ACIDS, THATS A FCT...AGAIN A FACT, BUT **** YOUR DENYING THIS FACT...And if you insist MAYBE ONE DAY in the FUTURE we can create life forms, then GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PSYCHIC PREDICTION, but as of now, LIFE IS A ENERGY OR FORCE WE CANNOT DETECT...
Are you going to say "It doesnt mean an intelligent designer did it.." WELL ****, FACT IS EVERYTHING THAT'S FUNCTIONING, COMPLEX AND DETAIL, from biological to technological are effects by intelligent cause, FROM BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTION, TO EVEN TECHNOLOGICAL CONCEPTION, THIS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED...a fact..
You still insist of your idiotic opinion? Ok then, shakespeare, evolution, queen elizabeth, blackhole, god, king henryh are all myths..Period...
Being STUPID, and an idiot over and over again does not make your comments right either..
Like I was saying evidence is a myth guy...King Henry, blackhole, shakespeare, queen elizabeth, evolution, God are all myths ****.....
note: Why am I name calling? **** You are denying "facts" you are the perfect candidate to be called these names...
<font color="red">Moderator edit: deleted personal abuse. Name calling adds nothing to the discussion.</font>
All the more reason to ponder why whatsup keeps calling atheists "children".
Try to demonstrate how an intelligent designer, assuming that there is one (which is not true but for the sake of argument). You keep arguing over and over that scientists haven't been able to make life. Actually, they have been able to make amino acids (nuumerous experimental evidence here, you can not deny it unless you are willing to deny the entire bulk of biological works), and they've been able to create "protobionts" (I guess that's the right word..gimme a minute to look it up in my bio textbook) that exhibit the following:
Reproduce.
Grow.
React to their environments.
Three very important characteristics of life. So scientists have (if you take this to be life) or are very close to (if you don't) creating life. What now?
And try to create life for me by means of your faith or the superior force of your designer. I'll bet you anything that your designer still needs to go through the whole fuck-pregnant-birth process. He obviously can't make one out of raw materials without the help of a male and female can he now?
Any more questions? You've repeated the same ones over and over again, often enough. You've also ignored the anwers often enough as well.
__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?
-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos
I've found that this is how MM works:
PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question]
(2) [Atheist answers question]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.
And:
ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [atheist gives up and goes home]
(9) Therefore, God exists.
Taken from the 300 Proofs of God's Existance at http://vanallens.com/exchristian/2002_10_15_archive.php
PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question]
(2) [Atheist answers question]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.
And:
ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [atheist gives up and goes home]
(9) Therefore, God exists.
Taken from the 300 Proofs of God's Existance at http://vanallens.com/exchristian/2002_10_15_archive.php
Hey!
I really like that Shakespear analogy. I have just recently seen a show on PBS talking about just that same thing. It seams that there is a great body of evidence pointing to the fact that Shakespear did not write the works of Shakespear. Ever wonder why so much of the Shakespear stories are based in Italy when Shakespear lived in England.
I guess nothing is just as simple as we would like it to be.
I really like that Shakespear analogy. I have just recently seen a show on PBS talking about just that same thing. It seams that there is a great body of evidence pointing to the fact that Shakespear did not write the works of Shakespear. Ever wonder why so much of the Shakespear stories are based in Italy when Shakespear lived in England.
I guess nothing is just as simple as we would like it to be.
is an atheist someone who does not believe in god or is it some one who just goes on about how god does not exsit!
I am quite confussed!
because being christian i dont go around trying to tell people my god is the greatest or you should let god into your life so i would like to know what the obsession with all the atheists going around saying your god does not exist you are being fooled
i mean i hate when bible bashers approch me but it seems that most the atheists on this forum are the exact opposite but just as worse!!!!!
Shakespeare wrote plays based all over Europe. Some of his best works were not placed in Italy, like Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, MacBeth etc.
I recently saw a show talking about how we never went to the moon, that it was all a big conspiracy. They had lots of evidence on there as well. Needless to say it was all false, so I wouldn't believe everything I see on TV.
Xelios:
Thanks for your great wisdom and insight. Up until now I always believed everything that I saw on T.V. Now I don't know where I will go to learn anything. I suppose I could learn everything I need to know by reading your posts.
The idea that Shakespear did not write the works of Shakespear is not new. The leading candidate is a fellow named Marley who was a spy that they belived faked his death with the help of the Queen to escape the inquisitions. After Marley died the theroy goes that he lived in Italy in hiding where he wrote his stories and sent them back to England where his patron gave them to a play master named Shakespear.
Sure it may not be true but there is nothing wrong with having an open mind. Well for some one like you who knows everything an open mind isn't really important but for me I find that other people actually have interesting things to say.
Thanks for your great wisdom and insight. Up until now I always believed everything that I saw on T.V. Now I don't know where I will go to learn anything. I suppose I could learn everything I need to know by reading your posts.
The idea that Shakespear did not write the works of Shakespear is not new. The leading candidate is a fellow named Marley who was a spy that they belived faked his death with the help of the Queen to escape the inquisitions. After Marley died the theroy goes that he lived in Italy in hiding where he wrote his stories and sent them back to England where his patron gave them to a play master named Shakespear.
Sure it may not be true but there is nothing wrong with having an open mind. Well for some one like you who knows everything an open mind isn't really important but for me I find that other people actually have interesting things to say.