Christians are arrogant as ? .
Options
Comments
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »yes to a certain extent i am guessing but so are you. you are no different from me in that reguard
your guesswork is absurd.you have so much faith in sciences that we cannot prove and that you have to take as correct.
I'm thinking for myself when I say that I believe the universe has a natural cause. You said that science disagrees with me and you obviously trust science enough yourself to attempt to base an argument around it. You forced my hand to use science to prove you wrong.People who have religion know this we know, that certain aspects of our existence and how ? did it is and will remain a mystery.
In other words, you're only speculatingi think ? created us because he wanted something to love not that he needed but that he wnated.
If this is the reason why ? created the universe, that means the universe was created for a purpose which means ? 's act of creation was deliberate which means there was prior thought which means ? thinks which means his thoughts are a succession of mental events which means ? exists in time.
Your guess work is just as absurd because you let it lead you to false conclusions, i believe in science but i never let science lead me to make stupid conclusions like you do. You are also speculating you are just a hypocrite. ONE CENTER OF RELIGION IS faith in what you cannot prove. you cannot prove much of quantum theory but you believe in it anyway. I never based my argument that ? exist around around science, i based the universe having a start around science. I will say it again ? does not move is sequence and besides our concept of time is not for him it is for us. lets just say that since you cannot understand ? being timeless that for ? there is pre-time. in which ? thought all things all at the same time, but there can be no time with out space so all at once time as we know it began. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »I cant see videos. I'm at work
we can continue when you get home. -
what makes me think the universe did not come about by quantum vacumm fluctions. First, quantum fluctuations are not nothing, but something. Second, we have no proof that these fluctuations come from no thing and have no cause. (how would such an idea be proved?) Third, whatever is brought from potential to actual must be caused to do so by something that is already actual. Thus if there is a potential thing that becomes an actual thing, there must be an actual thing that brings it to be. Fourth, quantum physics is not nearly as well understood as principles of cause and effect, which are foundational to knowledge. It is not logical to take a theory which is little understood and use it to replace one that is well understood. Fifth, appealing to quantum fluctuations merely pushes the problem of causality back one more step, for we must ask the cause of the fluctuations.(1) Sixth, we have no evidence that quantum fluctuations and the laws of physics, such as gravity, can exist in isolation with neither matter nor energy in prior existence, nor do we have any evidence that such laws by themselves have any causal power. Quantum physics is a world of odd physics where logic can do anything.
Where'd you copy/paste this from?
This is not really an answer to my question which leads me to believe you didn't actually write this (not to mention the bolded denotes a citation). I agree with most of what is said here. It doesn't show how one should believe that the universe did not come about by way of a quantum vacuum -
It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuationsRoots Oceanic wrote: »@zombie
Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
...
The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.
It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
In July, physicists were ecstatic in announcing preliminary results pointing to the discovery of the long-sought Higgs boson particle.
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-physicist-significance-higgs-boson-discovery.html
-
Did you know ? created night and day before the sun?
-
i based the universe having a start around science.
and I agree with youI will say it again ? does not move is sequence and besides our concept of time is not for him it is for us. lets just say that since you cannot understand ? being timeless that for ? there is pre-time. in which ? thought all things all at the same time, but there can be no time with out space so all at once time as we know it began.
Let's just say you are not able to figure out how your timeless ? theory would work and call it a day. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Where'd you copy/paste this from?
Oh nevermind I found it
http://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/nothing-quantum-fluctuations-and-the-cheshire-cat/
Please use your own words from now on.
And I'll ask you the same question again:
With the application of quantum physics, you can explain the universe by way of a natural cause: a quantum vacuum fluctuation.
And you still haven't answered my question: what makes you think the universe did not come about by way of vacuum fluctuations? That question leads us back to the articles I posted which you claimed have nothing to do with the cause of the universe?
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »what makes me think the universe did not come about by quantum vacumm fluctions. First, quantum fluctuations are not nothing, but something. Second, we have no proof that these fluctuations come from no thing and have no cause. (how would such an idea be proved?) Third, whatever is brought from potential to actual must be caused to do so by something that is already actual. Thus if there is a potential thing that becomes an actual thing, there must be an actual thing that brings it to be. Fourth, quantum physics is not nearly as well understood as principles of cause and effect, which are foundational to knowledge. It is not logical to take a theory which is little understood and use it to replace one that is well understood. Fifth, appealing to quantum fluctuations merely pushes the problem of causality back one more step, for we must ask the cause of the fluctuations.(1) Sixth, we have no evidence that quantum fluctuations and the laws of physics, such as gravity, can exist in isolation with neither matter nor energy in prior existence, nor do we have any evidence that such laws by themselves have any causal power. Quantum physics is a world of odd physics where logic can do anything.
Where'd you copy/paste this from?
This is not really an answer to my question which leads me to believe you didn't actually write this (not to mention the bolded denotes a citation). I agree with most of what is said here.
yes i copied pasted it becuase i do not have the patience to explain it all to you in my own words when you watch the videos it will explain that the universe had a start and that quantum fluccations are not nothing they are something and something has to come from somewhere. Qunatum fluctions do not explain the origin of the universe.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »Where'd you copy/paste this from?
Oh nevermind I found it
http://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/nothing-quantum-fluctuations-and-the-cheshire-cat/
Please use your own words from now on.
And I'll ask you the same question again:
With the application of quantum physics, you can explain the universe by way of a natural cause: a quantum vacuum fluctuation.
And you still haven't answered my question: what makes you think the universe did not come about by way of vacuum fluctuations? That question leads us back to the articles I posted which you claimed have nothing to do with the cause of the universe?
watch the video -
yeah, I agree, quantum fluctuations are "something" and I believe they have a cause as well. But that doesn't answer the question of why you think the universe could not have arisen from a quantum vacuum
-
If the video says the same thing your copy/pasted answer does, I'm gonna tell you the same thing.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »yeah, I agree, quantum fluctuations are "something" and I believe they have a cause as well.
ok then what is it? and where did it come from? Matter being quantum fluctuations does nothing to help your argument that the universe always existed. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »yeah, I agree, quantum fluctuations are "something" and I believe they have a cause as well.
ok then what is it? and where did it come from? Matter being quantum fluctuations does nothing to help your argument that the universe always existed.
The universe is made of matter isn't it? I didn't say the universe always existed but quantum fluctuations help what I did say, which is that existence is a succession of causes and effects.
In other words, "something" has always existed and whatever form "something" takes, "something" has a cause the preceded it.
In other words, I do not believe "pure/complete nothingness" can exist. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »yeah, I agree, quantum fluctuations are "something" and I believe they have a cause as well.
ok then what is it? and where did it come from? Matter being quantum fluctuations does nothing to help your argument that the universe always existed.
The universe is made of matter isn't it? I didn't say the universe always existed but quantum fluctuations help what I did say, which is that existence is a succession of causes and effects.
In other words, "something" has always existed and whatever form "something" takes, "something" has a cause the preceded it.
In other words, I do not believe "pure/complete nothingness" can exist.
the bolded is the same as saying the universe always existed. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »yeah, I agree, quantum fluctuations are "something" and I believe they have a cause as well.
ok then what is it? and where did it come from? Matter being quantum fluctuations does nothing to help your argument that the universe always existed.
The universe is made of matter isn't it? I didn't say the universe always existed but quantum fluctuations help what I did say, which is that existence is a succession of causes and effects.
In other words, "something" has always existed and whatever form "something" takes, "something" has a cause the preceded it.
In other words, I do not believe "pure/complete nothingness" can exist.
the bolded is the same as saying the universe always existed.
No it's not.
There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.
The Hidden Reality pg. 4, Brian Greene -
You're using the word universe to mean everything that could possibly exist. I'm not. There lies your problem.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »You're using the word universe to mean everything that could possibly exist. I'm not. There lies your problem.
no matter the word used it is the same thing the same principle applies. like the video states all you are doing is pushing existence back. but it had to start at one point and did not exist before it. -
no matter the word used it is the same thing the same principle applies. like the video states all you are doing is pushing existence back. but it had to start at one point and did not exist before it
No, you're using the term "universe" to mean everything that could ever exist (There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang.) while erroneously applying the steady state theory, which uses a more modern definition of "universe" (Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection)
See below:
a model developed as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to. The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »no matter the word used it is the same thing the same principle applies. like the video states all you are doing is pushing existence back. but it had to start at one point and did not exist before it
No, you're using the term "universe" to mean everything that could ever exist (There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang.) while erroneously applying the steady state theory, which uses a more modern definition of "universe" (Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection)
See below:
a model developed as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to. The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
the steady state theory is wrong and has been discredited i posted that same wiki. -
the bvg theory states that that all creation had a one start and that the universe can go on eternally in the future but not in the past. in other worlds EXISTENCE had one start not just our universe but all possible universes,
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »no matter the word used it is the same thing the same principle applies. like the video states all you are doing is pushing existence back. but it had to start at one point and did not exist before it
No, you're using the term "universe" to mean everything that could ever exist (There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang.) while erroneously applying the steady state theory, which uses a more modern definition of "universe" (Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection)
See below:
a model developed as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to. The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
the steady state theory is wrong and has been discredited i posted that same wiki.
The reason why I posted it is to show you what you originally posted and its relation to what I'm telling you now. The point is to show you how you apply the steady state theory in error. -
And that is not what the big bang states
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »no matter the word used it is the same thing the same principle applies. like the video states all you are doing is pushing existence back. but it had to start at one point and did not exist before it
No, you're using the term "universe" to mean everything that could ever exist (There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang.) while erroneously applying the steady state theory, which uses a more modern definition of "universe" (Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection)
See below:
a model developed as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to. The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
the steady state theory is wrong and has been discredited i posted that same wiki.
The reason why I posted it is to show you what you originally posted and its relation to what I'm telling you now. The point is to show you how you apply the steady state theory in error.
i have not applied it in error because wrong in all ways. it does not matter if you mean this universe or any other hypothetical universe . i will now stop using the term universe and start using the word existence. existence had one start point. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »And that is not what the big bang states
yes but the bvg bascially does it does not prove ? , just that existence had a start. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »And that is not what the big bang states
yes but the bvg bascially does it does not prove ? , just that existence had a start.
The big bang theory says that this/our universe had a beginning, not that existence itself had a beginning.
most physicists no longer think that there was no time before the Big Bang..[there is a]possibility that something or other has always been going on or that something or other always will be going on, or both..[there is]no reason to discount the possibility
Atheism Explained pg. 74-75, David Steele
There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.
The Hidden Reality pg. 4, Brian Greene
