This whole discussion has become foolish. I will admit it. God could make light without stars, but that is no more relevant that the fact that I admit Luke Skywalker can move objects with the force.

Now, please provide some evidence for the monkey man hypothesis.

(March 25, 2012 at 3:49 pm)tobie Wrote:

(March 25, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm)tobie Wrote:

(March 25, 2012 at 12:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 25, 2012 at 11:26 am)tobie Wrote: In modern times, it is possible to create light without stars, such as in light-bulbs. However, the materials needed to make these light-bulbs etc. can only be created as the result of fusion in stars, or by the forces at work in supernovae. So, your question is redundant, because all methods of creating light are the results of stars.

Also, it would be impossible for a being to create light without losing some of it's mass ( Einstein's mass-energy principle), so if a being could create light, it would cause itself to stop existing.

Did I say God created a light bulb?

We create light without bulbs as well..

So again if we have the wherewith all to create light with out the use of a "light bulb" or a star, then isn't it possible God did the same?

(Hint it is either a yes or no question, if you feel you need to explain your non yes or no answer, then know your answer is wrong no matter what the explanation.)

Plus did you not read the part where i said their is a verse that says God radiates light, that Heaven Radiates light??? Shouldn't this stop all light bulb related responses?

Didn't you read the part where I said that if god radiated light, he would destroy himself?

Yes but I honestly did not think you were serious. God yielding to an a observance Einstein made.. is.. dismissively foolish, unless you believe Einstein observed God when He made his conclusion.

Is this what you are saying?

So believing something that has been derived from maths and observations from the world is foolish, yet believing that some magical being created the world, despite all the physical evidence that it didn't, is completely sound? If you are saying that god doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, than he cannot act within the universe, no less create anything within it.

No, my assertion is that the Laws of Physics are not complete. Or do you truly think in a short amount of time our understanding of physics can explain all processes in the infinite universe?

If so, know you exhibit a greater faith than required from the whole of Christianity.

(March 25, 2012 at 4:00 pm)Drich Wrote: No, my assertion is that the Laws of Physics are not complete. Or do you truly think in a short amount of time our understanding of physics can explain all processes in the infinite universe?

If so, know you exhibit a greater faith than required from the whole of Christianity.

No it requires no faith whatsoever. Don't be so naive. Did you pull this one out of the how to debate atheists for dummies book?

Faith is something that you believe with no proof. The laws of physics go through peer review and are scrutinized by some of the brightest people in the modern world. Then when it is seen that they stand up to their own merits they are trusted. We use many observations and tests to scrutinize the laws of physics and they seem to be accurate each time.

(March 25, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='mediamogul' pid='260943' dateline='1332696255']

Quote:So god radiates light? Is he powered by nuclear fusion?

Is all non indecassent light we can make, the result of Nuclear fusion??
(The answer is no)

Seriously you guys if you just take a minute and think about it you can save alittle face. We can make light that does not have anything to do with any type of fusion nor using incandescent light.. Why don't you google artificial light. before your next post.

My question still stands. If we can make this light why wouldn't God be able to do something better? The question is one designed to show not all light comes from stars. If you can admit this your arguments are over, unless you really really want to be schooled by the "back wards Christian."

For artificial lighting to exist, there must exist things to create it. These things ( e.g humans) need stars to exist ( for light, heat, providing heavier elements) so therefore, we need stars to create artificial lighting. Before stars, light could only really be created due to atoms emitting photons as a result of de-excitation, which is fairly random, and mostly won't be visible light.

(March 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Faith No More Wrote: This whole discussion has become foolish. I will admit it. God could make light without stars, but that is no more relevant that the fact that I admit Luke Skywalker can move objects with the force.

Now, please provide some evidence for the monkey man hypothesis.

The monkey man hypothesis is one based on the theory of evolution. Anything and everything that can be accredited to that "theory" will also support the monkey man theory.

So take your pick.

If this is not sufficient then please provide the parameters of the evidence you seek (in detail.)

Otherwise know if you do not know what you are looking for then I can not help you find it.

You know you guys are just playing into his hands by arguing this. After all, God is his omnipotent, fictional character, so if he says his god can create light without starts, then his god can. Conceding this point gets him no closer to proving Eden was sectioned off from all of the monkey men.

I think arguing this point is just allowing him to step away from his orginal argument which he has yet to demonstrate one piece of evidence for.

'No, my assertion is that the Laws of Physics are not complete.'

Arguing from ignorance

'Or do you truly think in a short amount of time our understanding of physics can explain all processes in the infinite universe?'

Who says they do, or don't?

'If so, know you exhibit a greater faith than required from the whole of Christianity.'

Really. Think about that, we know of Laws of Physics, you're comparing that to Christianity which makes claims that have NO evidence whatsoever. Which says that the whole universe is created for us, by an infinite god who loves us, but no so much as he loves himself (a quick eye over the 10 commandments gives a wonderful insight into his thoughts). Not only that, to save us from the sin that he gave us, he kills his own son, who is also him, so it's no real sacrifice at all.

Faith in physical laws that we know exist cannot be compared to a religion that makes extraordinary claims with no evidence to back up the claims.

The god character didn't make light, at least in the sense of construction. It magicked light into being. The incantation "Let there be..." in the context of the story is an expression of wish magic, no different to the kind of wish magic popularised from Arabian mythology. Could it be that you are dressing it up as something less mythological because you recognise the inherent silliness in accepting fairytales as true records of events?

Brian Cox looks friendly doesn't he.



But if you keep talking down about physics he may chew your face off

(March 25, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Faith No More Wrote: This whole discussion has become foolish. I will admit it. God could make light without stars, but that is no more relevant that the fact that I admit Luke Skywalker can move objects with the force.

Now, please provide some evidence for the monkey man hypothesis.

The monkey man hypothesis is one based on the theory of evolution. Anything and everything that can be accredited to that "theory" will also support the monkey man theory.

So take your pick.

If this is not sufficient then please provide the parameters of the evidence you seek (in detail.)

Otherwise know if you do not know what you are looking for then I can not help you find it.

No evolutionary scientists claim that we are descended from monkeys. Get your own evidence, and stop asking us or the scientific community to do it for you!