How Can We Best Explain Our Existence ?

[MagickMonkey]

Maybe since Justyna was banned, she created a bogus account and changed her methods a bit? Probably not, but the timing kinda raises a flag.

Most likely not.

 

Justyna lives in Southern California (only about 1.5 hours from where I live). Her IP#s are banned too. She can only register again when she's back in school. She would be able to register again from the school network. Unless she used some kind of proxy.

 

And the new guy lives in Brazil according to his IP#s.

 

(I have superpowers you know. )

 

Well, that fixes her for a while.

[Rev R]

Justyna lives in Southern California (only about 1.5 hours from where I live). Her IP#s are banned too. She can only register again when she's back in school. She would be able to register again from the school network. Unless she used some kind of proxy.

 

Um, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that really vague instructions on how to get past you watchdawg?

[Ouroboros]

Justyna lives in Southern California (only about 1.5 hours from where I live). Her IP#s are banned too. She can only register again when she's back in school. She would be able to register again from the school network. Unless she used some kind of proxy.

 

Um, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that really vague instructions on how to get past you watchdawg?

If they use prosy, which I can see too, they are banned much faster. The reason I kept justyna here was because she made an honest registration and didn't hide. As soon as someone show trollish behavior and use proxy, they're kicked out immediately. But if someone is using proxy and still show good intntions, they're given the benefit of the doubt.

[recoveringfromchristianity]

I don't know if he is better than Justyna or not. It seems to me to be the same circular pattern with the common thread - that it is in the bible - you must believe whatever I say because it is in the bible! Lame..........

 

How does he think that if we don't believe the bible is the word of god, and we don't believe in god that we can miraculously see his point? Do christians that come on here even read our testimonies or understand that most of us were bible believers at one time? Do they understand most of us were heavily involved in church? Would be nice if they really listened before they started preaching. But again, it does remind me why I left christianity and church that is for sure!

[Ouroboros]

Dibri's debate on another forum, almost word by word: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php/5588-Reasons-why-i-am-a-theist.

 

I'll let him stay for a day or two, and then I'll get rid of him. He's just another kind of spammer.

[Dibllsmek]

Don't ask, Don't tell. Live and let live.

 

Whats more important, how we came to exist, or our existence itself?

 

Wait... Justyna has been banned? Praise the Lord!

[Guest Dibri501]

I don't know if he is better than Justyna or not. It seems to me to be the same circular pattern with the common thread - that it is in the bible - you must believe whatever I say because it is in the bible! Lame..........

 

How does he think that if we don't believe the bible is the word of god, and we don't believe in god that we can miraculously see his point? Do christians that come on here even read our testimonies or understand that most of us were bible believers at one time? Do they understand most of us were heavily involved in church? Would be nice if they really listened before they started preaching. But again, it does remind me why I left christianity and church that is for sure!

 

thats really funny. my arguments are all based on science. you have no point whatsoever.....

 

 

 

[Guest Dibri501]

IMHO, this kind of troll is at least slightly better than a Justyna. There is an actual topic in question, rather than just "God is real cuz I hear him in my head, and you all secretly believe in him too I can't hear you lalala..."

 

personal attacks are the worst arguments for your case.

 

 

 

[florduh]

my arguments are all based on science.

I used to make science fit my Christian "truth." Finally got a sore back from the contortions.

[Guest Dibri501]

No I'm perfectly aware it's proseletyzing bullshit. I have already looked at the apologists arguments for many years and am now reading science with actual data. I'm just sharpening my claws. I can see that he is just quoting the same crap over and over - I'm pointing out his flawed understanding of what cosmology claims. Methinks the OP has never heard of vacuum fluctuation (zero-point energy).

 

well, you are wrong. And vacuum fluctuations don't actually explain anything convincingly.

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/quantum-fluctuations-t65.htm

 

A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."

 

The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever."

 

 

[Guest Dibri501]

Admitted "layperson" here: if I understand correctly, (and I think Dhampir touched on this) the Big Bang Theory doesn't claim that the matter/energy that comprises this universe was made from nothing.

 

Nope.

 

http://elshamah.heav...inning-t199.htm

 

 

 

http://www.mathpages.../s7-01/7-01.htm

 

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :

http://news.national...teuniverse.html

 

 

That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

 

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

 

http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth11.html

 

[justify]The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."[/justify]

 

http://www.thekeyboa...%20infinity.htm

 

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

 

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

 

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

 

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

 

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

http://wiki.answers....arity_come_from

 

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

 

http://thoughtlife.w...c-observations/

 

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

 

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

 

http://www.godandsci.../beginning.html

 

From all I've read, cosmologists claim that matter/energy in some form has always existed in some form. Which seems way more plausible than that a very complex being always existed.

 

http://elshamah.heav...iverse-t144.htm

 

 

If, universally, all systems and processes are “winding down”, dissipating energy and becoming more disordered over time, this implies the universe will at some point reach a state of equilibrium with constant temperature everywhere and the energy in all stars and other systems will have dissipated. Since this has not yet happened, the implication is that the universe has NOT always existed or else equilibrium would have already been reached. The universe exists, thus it must have had a beginning. Since natural processes have never been observed creating something from nothing, the only explanation for the existence of the universe is an un-natural or super-natural creation.

 

Since we are unaware of any universal maintenance program, we can conclude that the universe will continually proceed in the direction of increasing disorder (Entropy) and energy dissipation, thus eventually reaching a state of equilibrium everywhere.

Also, I don't see how it would logically follow from the assumption of an creator, that it would be unchanging or personal.

 

http://elshamah.heav...hlight=personal

 

The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

[Ouroboros]

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/quantum-fluctuations-t65.htm

 

A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."

 

The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever."

The quote is from this page: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html

It's a bit confusing when you make a reference to YOUR OWN FORUM as a source of a quote, and then the link in your forum points to website that doesn't have the quote anymore. It's better if you actually research who said it, when and where, and give the credit where credit is due. The way you do it, makes it look like you're quoting yourself and just give yourself credit for other people's work.

 

And from the pieces I've looked into, you're only quoting the part that supports your view, not the parts that contains qualifiers for their statements. You're making false dichotomies of other people's statements.

[Ouroboros]

Quote mining, quote mining, quote mining...

 

You have nothing original or interesting to say, and you're not properly giving credit to the people who produce the words you use. Therefore, the Big Red Button of Doom is now heading your way.

 

Bye, bye.

[Guest Valk0010]

So to be personal, means not a robot. You can have a personality and be not personal, meaning in human terms, your antisocial.

 

To use your words. A first cause god, can be personal, but doesn't interfere on planet earth outside of its creation.

 

When I use the term personal, I mean in regards to interaction, not the capability of a mind.

 

Again a god could easily have created us, but there is no evidence of a resurrection or a miracle.

 

Can't a god, just create us, and leave us to our own devices. And not interfere ever, and just create and leave.

[lunaticheathen]

Well, that was almost cute for a second.

The might Ban Hammer squishes another fundy!

[Ouroboros]

I found out that he's been debating these things on other web-forums as well, and the response is pretty much the same everywhere. He uses the same method, all the time, no new or original thought or unique contribution. He's only quoting websites (without properly investigating the sources or giving credit to those who spent the time thinking about these things) and he only sticks in some comments here and there to tie the quotes together.

 

If anyone is interested in discussing these topics with him, then you can go to his forum where all material is collected. Yes, you read it right. He has a forum where he stores all the quotes (and some have links to where he found it) and to some degree debate as well. I believe it's probably easier to debate him there, than to have him copy-n'-paste everything from there into here.

 

If you're interested to do so, you can see the link embedded in many of his posts above. He pretty much use his own website as the "source" of his information (quotes).