Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (14231)	6/8/2007 2:23:59 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

yeah....and MAN WAS ON EARTH WITH DINOSAURS....of which you are obviously one....

To: Brumar89 who wrote (14231)	6/9/2007 11:56:59 AM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

You said: There are four great miracles that we have physical evidence of readily available to us: 1) The coming into existence of the universe. Things do not begin without a cause. That's true, things do not begin without a cause, but you call the existence of the universe a "miracle" which suggests you know the cause. 2) The universe that came into existence was against incredible odds fine-tuned in such a way that life can exist in it. The best cosmologists testify to the truth of this. Against incredible odds to you and me and everyone else since no one has an answer as to what was "banged" in the "big bang". Fine tuned? How do you know that?? I don't think cosmologists, as a group, testify to anything about the universe being "fine tuned". Does Carl Sagan? The words "fine tuned" are your own attempt to bring something supernatural into the picture.. 3) The beginning of life by spontaneous generation is impossible, just as it impossible that the computer in front of you spontaneously generated. No one says life began as spontaneous generation, another attempt of yours to explain things with something supernatural. There is no evidence for anything supernatural, however, if you choose to believe that, be my quest. 4) The biochemical process that is life has become couscious, self-aware, with a mind and a will of its own. These things are both evidence of a Creator and evidence the Creator is deeply interested in the beings he has created. Correct, but these things are not evidence of a creator, a god to you since you capitalize it. You are not smart enough, nor am I, to know that there is such a "Creator". I gather you a religious person.....may I ask your religion?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (14231)	6/11/2007 11:13:59 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

"1) The coming into existence of the universe. Things do not begin without a cause. I offered Shepp a plausible alternative that is founded in science. The alternative would be that our universe does not come without an explanation or physical cause in tune with the known laws of cosmology. The tiny thing that was banged was a uniform singularity of substance ... similar or exactly like the phenomenon of black holes where all the substance that enters loses its separateness and is so condensed and uniform that it can't be distinguished by having a place in space apart from other things in space. Since such singularity has no physical distinction or space distinction, it can also be referred to as no-thing (something goes to nothing becomes scientific), although some scientists object to the 'nothing' terminology and prefer to use the term singularity. So the big bang comes as an explosion of this singularity into the many separate things in space ... our universe. The universe also contracts or collapses as we see in black holes. So if the universe has an oscillating function of collapsing and banging again, the process could go on forever. However, if that were true we are still stuck with this uncomfortable notion of eternity in an existence we call temporal. The importance of this part of the debate is to come to some rational resolution about existence being either eternal or not. The banged universe may be temporary but if it repeats unending then the oscillating universe(s) is not temporary. In an eternity of time the chance of anything accidentally combining to form something new is plausible. However, no one has been able to replicate a process of life from non-life so their is some underlying aspect of life force that remains mysterious. Eternity is a foundational construct of faith. Atheists like Shepp refuse to consider the question of eternity because their position is to claim a temporary life where a purpose that might be extending beyond their temporary existence is not useful. As far as the miracle aspect goes, we still have to wonder if it is a willed universe or a universe comprised solely of evolution resulting in chance. I will see if I can get a more rational atheist to join in. Best regards, Gem

To: Brumar89 who wrote (14231)	6/11/2007 1:10:16 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14758

1) The coming into existence of the universe. Things do not begin without a cause. That, according to modern physics, is flat wrong. Quantum mechanics REQUIRES that that be wrong. One way of looking at this is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle en.wikipedia.org says there can be no such thing as 'empty' space; particles come into and go to out out existence in it constantly. One result of it is that eliminated a problem that had bothered classical physicists since Newton:action at a distance. This was the ability of one macroscopic body to influence another with no intervening particles to do the "pushing" or "pulling"; the job was done by an abstraction called a "field". The Uncertainty Principle says these temporary particles do the work. It also allows the formation of black holes that can then explode, creating a universe. space.com More general coverage: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu 2) The universe that came into existence was against incredible odds fine-tuned in such a way that life can exist in it. The best cosmologists testify to the truth of this. But you wouldn't know of any that were created without proper parameters for life, would you? There may have been a billion others created that were sterile and you would know of none of them. 3) The beginning of life by spontaneous generation is impossible, just as it impossible that the computer in front of you spontaneously generated. That computer wasn't "spontaneously generated"; it was designed. And for economic reasons it was designed in a relatively short period of time by a small number of engineers with very limited random experimentation. How YOU can presume to speak of what can happen in billions of years with no basis but your "feeling" is totally beyond me. You state the result, then say it is true because you want it to be true. Ever played with some graphic computerized chaos theory programs? The patterns that can be generated by enough randomness are rather amazing. 4) The biochemical process that is life has become couscious, self-aware, with a mind and a will of its own. So? Before you go further, you'd best define "conscious", "self-aware", "mind", and "will", then demonstrate that none of them exist in, say, a chimp. Or a dog. These things are both evidence of a Creator and evidence the Creator is deeply interested in the beings he has created. Suppose I granted all your argument but that. Why couldn't the creator just set it up as an entertainment device to see what happens? Did you say he is omniscient and already knows? Then do you have free will? And what does that mean, anyway? Your, problem, I think is you are attempting to argue for one side of a point that cannot be settled. You can no more prove there is a God than I can there isn't.