Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (Edgar_Herrera, VoroneTZ, Akow), 973 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 16 of 21 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 20 21
Re: D'oh! [Re: PHeMoX] #205318
05/05/08 20:30
05/05/08 20:30
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
Why_Do_I_Die Offline OP
Warned
Why_Do_I_Die  Offline OP
Warned

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
"This is mainly because it's facts, theories, educated opinions and so on versus opinions based on fear, feelings, emotions"
But you had put this before
". You don't bother to even accept that we currently do not actually know how life came into existence"
So you are arguing for nothing ? You are fighting for the scientific theory of how life came to existance and then say we dont currently know how it happened ? So which is it , is evolution right and you know or is it wrong because you dont know ? And if you dont know , should we be teaching this as fact ? I think you dont even read what you type , as you have clearly proven my arguments right with that lalst statement.

"Whether with the help of your God or not, there has been a chemical process for sure"
Who's arguing chemical processes ?

"I'm obviously talking science vs. religion here, so don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to know everything or pretend to be 100% correctly informed on all the various subjects."
Well inform yourself better than continue posting , how can you be arguing something your not sure of ?

"do not accept God as a possible theory"
Even if it's the most likely one ?
Even if all science really points to a grand design ?

The real question is , why isnt GOD a possible theory, isn't just as good , in fact better than the other ? If things could have somehow spontaneously generated , and life started from nothing , then it's just as possible than everything was created , and life was crafted by God. But if the theory of a creater is just not possible or accepted by the scientists no matter what , then , is science not a religion rather than science ? Any theory , should be a possible one , because science is suppossed to be searching for the truth through experiments and tests , but the second you say , well we wont even minutely consider god being a possibility , it's the moment you are saying , we are no longer science , we are the science religion , which believes everything began from nothing adn we evolutioned from nothing , it is what we believe , what we teach , and nothing is goinngi to change our minds from that , no amount of proof of design or complexity of life or any findings. That my friend , is religion , and you are a devoted follower, even if you can bring yourself to accept it.



Last edited by Why_Do_I_Die; 05/05/08 20:30.
Re: D'oh! [Re: Why_Do_I_Die] #205326
05/05/08 20:58
05/05/08 20:58
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
 Quote:
The real question is , why isnt GOD a possible theory,

It is absolutely a possible theory, just not a scientific one.

Now show me a repeatable experiement -- with hypothesis, procedure, analysis, and conclusion clearly defined -- to TEST this and it becomes a scientific theory.

Again, your unreasonable bias towards science has blinded you into ignorance.


 Quote:
But if the theory of a creater is just not possible or accepted by the scientists no matter what , then , is science not a religion rather than science

I actually think this is doing some good for you are catching on! Here's a shocker: SCIENCE IS OPEN TO GOD. Science will accept that there is a creator if and only if as I stated above there is an experiment that proves it so.

Saying it's so from the pulpit,
Reading it's so from a holy text,
Neither of these suffice.

There must be a measurable and repeatable experiment
that any scientist around the world can perform
before Science can accept "God" as a viable scientific axiom.


 Quote:
Well inform yourself better than continue posting , how can you be arguing something your not sure of ?

I see you are better at giving advice than taking it. \:D

Re: D'oh! [Re: Why_Do_I_Die] #205327
05/05/08 21:01
05/05/08 21:01
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
 Quote:
I don't think these kind of discussions really ever end with satisfaction


No, but they sure are a fun way to practice disarming this dribble for the NEXT time someone has an un-original un-scientific brain fart and decides to post it, talk it, write it, or try to teach it!

Re: D'oh! [Re: Why_Do_I_Die] #205335
05/05/08 21:54
05/05/08 21:54
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
 Originally Posted By: Why_Do_I_Die
"This is mainly because it's facts, theories, educated opinions and so on versus opinions based on fear, feelings, emotions"
But you had put this before
". You don't bother to even accept that we currently do not actually know how life came into existence"
So you are arguing for nothing ? You are fighting for the scientific theory of how life came to existance and then say we dont currently know how it happened ? So which is it , is evolution right and you know or is it wrong because you dont know ? And if you dont know , should we be teaching this as fact ? I think you dont even read what you type , as you have clearly proven my arguments right with that lalst statement.


Evolution and the 'start of life' are definitely two related things, however they are also two different things. As a relativist I'm always arguing a bit for nothing I guess, because we may have an entirely different view on things in about 50 years or so because of better understanding of how things work. In fact, much has changed already compared to say the paradigms of the 80ies. Problem nowadays are certain pseudo-scientific hypes that are created purely for commercial purposes.

 Quote:
And if you dont know , should we be teaching this as fact


In my opinion common sense suggests to go with what's most likely to have happened and teach that, with the knowledge that it may be somewhat wrong, incomplete and so on. Again, science doesn't claim to have omniscient knowledge. I'm a relativist as you might remember, so in fact I somewhat agree with you that we shouldn't teach things if there's reasonable doubt to believe it may not be true. Obviously this is something that valid for the start of life, it is however not true for evolution. It's still a theory because it's not perfect, however there's really enough evidence to suggest that it's correct.

 Quote:
"Whether with the help of your God or not, there has been a chemical process for sure"
Who's arguing chemical processes ?


Well, perhaps I am misunderstanding creationism, but don't you believe in instantaneous creation by some supernatural creature? A being that also want to fool us by putting fossils in the ground and so on, or are your views more modern? ;\) I'm kidding around a bit, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of creationists also question the involvement of real chemical processes. Also this fact alone implies that it should be possible to recreate that chemical process. (Even if this ultimately would mean something along the lines of if 'God' can do it once, he can probably do it a million times.)

 Quote:
"do not accept God as a possible theory"
Even if it's the most likely one ?
Even if all science really points to a grand design ?


I don't think it's the most likely one, it is a possibility, but like Fastlane stated not a scientific theory by any means.

 Quote:
If things could have somehow spontaneously generated , and life started from nothing , then it's just as possible than everything was created , and life was crafted by God.


No, actually it isn't. First and foremost because the concept of God is an invention of mankind. It's easy to prove this. It's only because of the definition of God that it can't be proven in a scientific way, because you have to 'believe in it' for it to be real, more or less.

In fact, I would challenge you to give a definition of God that's simple yet striking / indicative enough so we eventually really could check he or she 'did create' or 'didn't create' by the time we figure it out. For example, what if it turns out that 'aliens' created us and our universe somehow... would that mean that these aliens suddenly are your God? That would mean there are more Gods... I doubt you would agree to that, or?

 Quote:
But if the theory of a creater is just not possible or accepted by the scientists no matter what


Actually that's not true and because of the fact that this is not true, science is not a religion. Accepted are those things we can agree upon. We can't agree upon God, because we can't prove nor disprove him/her/it. In my humble opinion science doesn't deal in illusionary absolutes religions tend to and doesn't promise anything but valid or invalid theories until proven otherwise.


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: D'oh! [Re: PHeMoX] #205338
05/05/08 22:01
05/05/08 22:01
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,710
MMike Offline
Serious User
MMike  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,710
There was a inital creation i call force, you can call GOD. But for sure its not what bible says, about GOD.

There is though a superior to us, anuki, well 2012 will say that the earth will end , and we gonna go for other planet, if out creators ( maybe the one they call god)

Re: D'oh! [Re: MMike] #205345
05/05/08 23:01
05/05/08 23:01
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
So... what would it be in your opinion?

 Quote:
There is though a superior to us, anuki, well 2012 will say that the earth will end , and we gonna go for other planet, if out creators ( maybe the one they call god)


Do you know why they say the world will 'end' on December 21 2012?

It's because the conspirators / doomsdayers think that the Mayans believed the world would end. Thís believe is clearly wrong ( I'm talking about the people that think to know that the Mayans believed the earth would be destroyed or something. )

Mayans were extremely talented astronomers and they simply calculated and derived from their observations that there would be a certain event completed... That event is the wobbling of the earth's axis that happens with cycles of every 26.000 years if I recall correctly.

( However, if I recall correctly current data suggests that the axis is actually decreasing, not increasing, so it won't complete the axis wobble on December 21 2012. Can't quite trust Wikipedia on this though. )

Also, this ending of a 'wobble' cycle doesn't really mean anything. Sure, it may have and probably will have it's impact on our climate, but that's happening quite gradually and is nothing too unusual if you look at earth with a much longer time-scale in mind and it's history.

Picture this; the current angle of the Earth's axis is somewhere around 23.44 degrees, where as this limit they are talking about is 24.5 degrees. However it seems to be decreasing, so it's not hitting any 'boundaries' any time soon.


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: D'oh! [Re: PHeMoX] #205352
05/06/08 01:51
05/06/08 01:51
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
Why_Do_I_Die Offline OP
Warned
Why_Do_I_Die  Offline OP
Warned

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
Well the Doomsday is something completely different , this wobble could definately end our life or not , I'm really not sure about this , and to be truthful the mayans never actually stated 2012 would be the end of the world , it's just where their calendar of events ends , which has caused people to assume it would be the end of the world. It's possible though , considering the Maya people were actually aware of the black hole in the center of our galaxy thousands of years ago when we barely founnd out about it like in 1995 , so their immaculately precise astronomy shouldnt just be discarded , but like I said , the mayan texts never state doomsday to take place in that day , so it could be a bad assumption , we shall see soon though.

"Now show me a repeatable experiement -- with hypothesis, procedure, analysis, and conclusion clearly defined -- to TEST this and it becomes a scientific theory."
Well how many do you need ?


LETS SHOW HOW SCIENTISTS DISTORT THEIR FINDINGS TO PUSH EVOLUTION PROPAGANDA

#1: The left over radiation they found in the universe that propelled the big bang theory over the steady state theory.

Lets anylize this, not long ago , a lot of scientists believed the universe always existed and had always been , they had the steady state theory. Then thorugh scientific experiments they found out something , hey , this is wrong, the universe was actually "CREATED". However , sientists and their affinity to deny God , went ahead and sait this (it's incredible they had the balls to pitch this idea) , yes , the universe was in fact created , but not by god , by "NOTHING". Wow , and doesnt this COMPLETELY contradict some of science basic believes that matter CANNOT be created, yet they say the universe and all matter within created itself. This , to me , is incredible , and more incredible that people believe it when they are in fact beliving in a contradiction , you either believe matter can be created or it cant. But scientists omit the contradiction and just dont mention it , hoping it'll go away. So recap , what did scientist found through experiments , that the universe and earth were CREATED, didnt the bible say that like 3 or 4 thousand years ago ? But of course , bible is very wrong , it wasnt created by a creator or a designer , it was created from nothing and by itself , I guess kind of like our children birth themselves spontanously and have no parents.

#2: DNA

Can you all believe scientists have actually used DNA to push evolution ? Really ? Do you all understand what DNA is ? For those who dont know here is a brief explanation , DNA is our SOURCE CODE. They found it , and I actually commend scientists on such a spectacular finding. They found Gods programming , thats embedded in each of our cells, each cell has a full copy of our source code. Now are you telling me that this code wrote itself ? Really ? And I supposse the code behind the games we create and the code that runs behind windows spontanously generated itself too ? Would you say it's possible for windows to have created itself ? Of course not right , you dont believe it's possible do you ? Yet you believe that our very own source code , our DNA , wrote itself. WOW. How scientists managed to mangle this into being proof of evolution is beyond me. If DNA isnt enough for you , what is ? It's the cells programming , we that understand how computers work and games work , fully understand how programming works , so how can you even consider saying our DNA coded itself ? This is real code , and this code tells each cell exactly what to do , and together , all cells working according their code , they build organs and all the body's functions , from cell to the brain , with the end product being a human being , an elemental flesh machine, to be goverened by a soul at it's command.

Everyone here reading , do see the previous videos I posted , one is arounndo 30 min long and explains all the workings of cells as well as the eye and some others , it really shows our complex design.

So all of science findings point towars a designer , from the physics system that encompasses our solar system , to the inner workings of our cells , EVERY SINGLE scientific finding points to incredible design , NONE points to randomness, yet , the explanation for all this harmony and design is one of chaos and chance , how does this make sense ?

So if we see a computer we should all assume that if we smash some metal together and mabe some glass and throw gasoline on it and light it up and throw a granade to it and explode it we might get a Quadcore dell with dual 30 inch lcd monitors and free internet ? LOL

The theory of evolution is LAUGHABLE at best , scientists could do a lot better exept for 1 little problem , science has PROVED CREATION , so they had to find a way to mangle creation withought a creator , and there it is, the big bang , the creation from nothing , incredible.

Dont forget , the bible clearly states , Satan is a LIAR , a DECEIVER , what more clever deception could he perpertrate than to fool god's people into believing they are nothing , came from nothing , evolved from baceria , then evolved from monkeys , and their life is really worthless , have no soul and no value , this is what evolution teaches , how can you not see that ?

Re: D'oh! [Re: Why_Do_I_Die] #205358
05/06/08 03:33
05/06/08 03:33
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
 Quote:
Well how many do you need ?


One.

 Quote:
Lets anylize this, not long ago , a lot of scientists believed the universe always existed and had always been ,


Correct. Pre-Hubble. And very few scientists actually believed this as there were few scientists back then that gave this any thought. Let's say, just to be on the safe side, about 100 scientists around the world in 1950 believed this. Next...

 Quote:
Then thorugh scientific experiments they found out something , hey , this is wrong,


Correct. We found evidence that contradicted the steady state model and suggested a changing model. To day there are thousands of people that believe this model and so far, it's still the leader. Next...

 Quote:
the universe was actually "CREATED


Wrong. We do not as scientists make any claim to know if the universe was created or always was. No experiment designed thus far can tell the difference and thus you get the big "no comment" from us. The Big Bang theory, the successor to Steady State, only makes assertions back up until 10^-47 seconds. Beyond that, there could be a singular creation event or several or something completely alien to our current thoughts.

 Quote:
However , sientists and their affinity to deny God , went ahead and sait this (it's incredible they had the balls to pitch this idea) , yes , the universe was in fact created , but not by god , by "NOTHING".


Wrong. Science makes no such claim and thus neither denys nor accepts God.
Am I getting through to you, McFly?

 Quote:
Wow , and doesnt this COMPLETELY contradict some of science basic believes that matter CANNOT be created, yet they say the universe and all matter within created itself.


Correct. I found this disturbing until I did some research. Like any other theory, conservation of energy is purely a local theory. Since there is a whole universe outside our Event Horizon, we are unable at this point to say that this theory applies to the Entire Universe or just our Observable Universe. As you see, Science, unlike other religo-philosophies, is not ashamed to say "I just don't know".

 Quote:
So recap , what did scientist found through experiments , that the universe and earth were CREATED


Remember, wrong. Can't build a house of cards without a foundation. Science makes no such claim... next..

 Quote:
didnt the bible say that like 3 or 4 thousand years ago ?


Kudos to the Bible. It must have taken real insight and spiritual knowledge to say the universe has begining (alpha) and an end (omega). I mean it's not like there is anything on Earth that could POSSIBLY put that idea in peoples head. It's not like they can just, I don't know, look around the earth and see things being born and dying. Truly, saying the universe was created is a stroke of supernatural genious.


 Quote:
thats embedded in each of our cells, each cell has a full copy of our source code. Now are you telling me that this code wrote itself ?


"The watch on the beach" again...
...or "I see design but not intelligence".

DNA is not a computer program. It is horribly naive to think of it that way. That is just the kind of simplistic view that is so common with today's society. We make analogies and if the semantics are right, we assume there must be something there. The mechanisms by which DNA carries this information is poorly understood at best and yet you presume, you, to make gradiose claims?

But check this out! Here is the beauty of science. It is all fair and all loving. If it were a god, I would worship it no doubt because: if somewhere down the line we find that there is an unnatural process that leads to DNA working, then we can point to a designer. In other words as I've stated before, Science doesn't deny god, it's just waiting for the proper experiment

But note, this cannot be something we don't understand (for the answer can be found tomorrow). Oh no. To prove design you have to prove that at one point all our scientific laws command a process to go "right" and in fact it went "left" and with a purpose!

 Quote:
Dont forget , the bible clearly states ,


Finally! Your references revealed! ROFLMAO

Re: D'oh! [Re: fastlane69] #205361
05/06/08 05:22
05/06/08 05:22
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
Why_Do_I_Die Offline OP
Warned
Why_Do_I_Die  Offline OP
Warned

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
"Wrong. We do not as scientists make any claim to know if the universe was created or always was"
Wait wait wait , so you are saying scientists DO NOT say the big bang , and explosion from either a tiny bean smaller than an atom or an explosion form nothing created the universe ? So what does it state again ?
From wiki
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[23] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[24] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe."
Yes , very interesting , but , where did all this energy come from ? the heating and cooling ? So they are saying this elements just basically eternally existed pre big bang ?

FACE IT , YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN IT , YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE EXISTANCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND MUCH LESS THE EXISTANCE OF LIFE.

Re: D'oh! [Re: Why_Do_I_Die] #205369
05/06/08 07:44
05/06/08 07:44
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
 Quote:
FACE IT , YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN IT , YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE EXISTANCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND MUCH LESS THE EXISTANCE OF LIFE.


Correct. No one can.

 Quote:
So they are saying this elements just basically eternally existed pre big bang ?


Wrong. If you listen carefully, you'll notice they don't say anything about this at all.

 Quote:
Wait wait wait , so you are saying scientists DO NOT say the big bang , and explosion from either a tiny bean smaller than an atom or an explosion form nothing created the universe ?


That's exactly what I'm saying. Since there is an (to date) impenetrable veil at 10^-47s, we cannot say if before that time, if behind that veil, there was infinite energy that reduced to finite, zero energy that emerged to finite, the finite energy was always there, or some other exotic energy explanation. The "homogeneously and isotropically [...] energy density" refers to our assumptions of the conditions right at the time of the veil and...

 Quote:
In the most common models


...as a model is subject to change. In fact wikipedia is not up to date on this. Current Cosmology (thanks in part to COBE mentioned prior) almost requires the initial energy denstiy to be non-homogenous and non-isotropic in order for the energy/matter distribution to be what we see today and explain what we see of the CMB.

And I know what's next, Why_Do, since it's in your name: Why is it this or that? Right? That's what you were thinking, I know you, you cheeky munky! Going back to the very first point, we don't know since our how-to only extends to the veil... beyond that, all theories are equally unprovable, thus making God on par with any other explanation scientists can provide as to why the Universe was created. Thus as scientists we work on the time after the veil, in reality, and leave what's behind the veil to others, to fantasy.

Page 16 of 21 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 20 21

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1