Posts: 226
Threads: 5
Joined: October 10, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 15, 2013 at 3:32 am
(October 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: (October 14, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And also how wonderful we all are.
As for snowtracks,
And when you're called on having a god for which you are unwilling to calculate the odds, you recourse to calling god "an effect." Congrats, that's a completely content free explanation. What do you mean, he's an effect? And where is your evidence that this is so? like i mentioned, the law of physics break down under a second after the big bang. words like 'beginning', 'created' only have meaning in context of the comic timeline (which basically is a sequence of cause and effect transactions) that commenced along with the 3 spatial dim.. one of the laws of physics is the principle of cause and effect. God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'.
``God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'``
what is the cause for the requirements that caused god to not have a beginning???
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 15, 2013 at 9:02 am
(October 15, 2013 at 1:37 am)Lion IRC Wrote: I think snowtracks has been mislead by reading the wrong physicists.
A lot of folk make the mistake of thinking that the laws of physics start to break down as you wind back the clock to within yocto-seconds of the big bang.
Or maybe it's a matter of guessing what that expression really even means. "...at which the laws of physics would break down."
Cue epistemology/philosophy 101 
Mr Hawking's blog disclaimer about speech synthesiser text.
"...there may be incorrect spellings, punctuation and/or grammar."
Perhaps I misunderstood what he/she meant by saying that the laws of physics break down a second after the big bang, because to me it sounded like he/she was saying that the laws of physics were in tact as the big bang happened and broke down a second later.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 16, 2013 at 7:29 am
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 7:29 am by Brakeman.)
(October 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: like i mentioned, the law of physics break down under a second after the big bang.
What do you think that means, in your words, that the "laws of physics broke down?" Do you think that the "Laws of physics" had a flat tire and was stranded on the road? When scientists declare something a "law" do you think that it means something that can never be broken or is it something that has never observed to be broken?
When scientists are able to complete tests that confirm what theory of mechanics that explains what happened during the big bang, the "laws of physics" will be amended and corrected so that once again the "laws of physics" will be unbroken and will explain all observed phenomena. No god woo required.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 19566
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 16, 2013 at 8:19 am
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 10:11 am by pocaracas.)
Newton's Law of gravity brakes down when in the presence of relatively intense gravitational fields...
It was amended by Einstein's General relativity.
Still, Newton's law is more than enough to send people to the moon, or Mars... even to put satellites in orbit... or moving away from the Sun... like V'Ger.
The laws are valid as long as they are valid. It's good to know where they break so we can work on amending them... We know the current laws break at the big bang... Let the experts work out the new more accurate law, instead of pushing any ad-hoc idea of a mysterious all-powerful entity that did it.
Posts: 950
Threads: 1
Joined: October 10, 2013
Reputation:
2
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 17, 2013 at 10:39 pm
(October 15, 2013 at 3:32 am)daandaan Wrote: (October 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: like i mentioned, the law of physics break down under a second after the big bang. words like 'beginning', 'created' only have meaning in context of the comic timeline (which basically is a sequence of cause and effect transactions) that commenced along with the 3 spatial dim.. one of the laws of physics is the principle of cause and effect. God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'.
``God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'``
what is the cause for the requirements that caused god to not have a beginning??? We now have proof, that the cause-effect phenomena is limited to a first order infinity.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 17, 2013 at 10:48 pm
And that proof is..?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 950
Threads: 1
Joined: October 10, 2013
Reputation:
2
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 18, 2013 at 12:07 am
(October 17, 2013 at 10:48 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And that proof is..?
the space-time theorems.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 18, 2013 at 12:37 am
(October 17, 2013 at 10:39 pm)snowtracks Wrote: We now have proof, that the cause-effect phenomena is limited to a first order infinity.
So, apparently seeing this exact tactic absolutely not convincing anyone when Grace tried it, didn't even slow you down, huh?
Instead of just asserting stuff, how about you provide evidence, next time?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 30716
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 18, 2013 at 12:58 am
(October 18, 2013 at 12:37 am)Esquilax Wrote: (October 17, 2013 at 10:39 pm)snowtracks Wrote: We now have proof, that the cause-effect phenomena is limited to a first order infinity.
So, apparently seeing this exact tactic absolutely not convincing anyone when Grace tried it, didn't even slow you down, huh?
Instead of just asserting stuff, how about you provide evidence, next time?
Oooo... Ooo.. I think I know why. But let's see how this pans out, shall we?
Posts: 226
Threads: 5
Joined: October 10, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
October 18, 2013 at 5:57 am
(October 17, 2013 at 10:39 pm)snowtracks Wrote: (October 15, 2013 at 3:32 am)daandaan Wrote: ``God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'``
what is the cause for the requirements that caused god to not have a beginning??? We now have proof, that the cause-effect phenomena is limited to a first order infinity.
what is the cause for the cause-effect phenomena to be limited to a first order infinity ??
in other words proof that ur god goes beyond that..and back up ur proof scientiffically ..
|
