Proof of God

[Mudhammam]

That gigantic post raped my scrollbar.

You forgot to add "deep" and "illuminating."

[Ben Davis]

I can write profound logical facts too.

~(a^b) = (~a)\/(~b)

(pi^2)/6 = sum[n=1 ... Infinity] (1/(n^2))

For all real k there exists r such that Sum[n=1 ... r] (1/n) > k

Robvalue is God



There we go. 3 logical facts way more profound than anything in the quran I think you'll agree. So it must all be true, and I am God.

Do you want my email so you can PayPal me your gratitude for your existence?

[robvalue]

That gigantic post raped my scrollbar.

I know. I've asked him at least 3 times to use spoiler tags.

[Ben Davis]

I know. I've asked him at least 3 times to use spoiler tags.

Recommend 'hide' not 'spoiler'. 'Spoiler' tags aren't compatible with the mobile version of the site.

HIDE FTW!!!!!

[robvalue]

I know. I've asked him at least 3 times to use spoiler tags.

Recommend 'hide' not 'spoiler'. 'Spoiler' tags aren't compatible with the mobile version of the site.

HIDE FTW!!!!!

Right, I meant hide I gave him the syntax too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh, is Harris still busy whacking his strawman of atheism? This guy's got legs!

[robvalue]

Why am I having to tell regulars what atheism is?

I've written all about it on my website for fucks sake.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They're afraid of websites about chainsaws, apparently.

[Cyberman]

I know. I've asked him at least 3 times to use spoiler tags.

Recommend 'hide' not 'spoiler'. 'Spoiler' tags aren't compatible with the mobile version of the site.

Even better; then we wouldn't have to bother trying to wade through that wall of vomit.

[pocaracas]

Yeah... it's so great when I get misunderstood... -.-'

I didn't ask if whatever you want "nothing" to be had a beginning.... I asked if nothing of what exists ever had a beginning. As in.... was always there, but just got transformed into different things.

There never was “absolute nothingness” because if there was such a thing then right now you and I were not exchanging our thoughts here. “Absolute nothingness” can produce only nothing.

If you think that quantum vacuum is eternal then you should bring convincing theory to support your idea that conform to the norms of standard conventions in contemporary theoretical science.

So, it seems to me that, while you want that not-absolute-nothingness that was absent of Universe to be a god, Krauss puts it as "quantum vacuum".

Krauss has with him, the benefit of measurements corroborating that "quantum vacuum" actually does what he suggests.
You have a god.... that does nothing, except hide behind the ever-receding gaps of scientific knowledge.

How do you expect me to accept your version over the Krauss'?

---

Harris Wrote:
Here arises another question:
What is the origin of this ENERGY?

Pocaracas Wrote:
Maybe it was always there...
Maybe, as Krauss claims, the sum total of energy in the whole Universe is ZERO.... hence, there is no energy, on the whole.... but we do get positive and negative energy locally.

Read the following quotes carefully.

“… our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that "something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance.”
Chapter 9
Nothing Is Something
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“A similar argument suggests that one can imagine one specific type of universe that might spontaneously appear and need not disappear almost immediately thereafter because of the constraints of the Uncertainty Principle and energy conservation. Namely, a compact universe with ZERO TOTAL ENERGY.

Now, I would like nothing better than to suggest that this is precisely the universe we live in.”

Chapter 10
Nothing Is Unstable
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“I refer here to the multiverse. The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different, opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence”

CHAPTER 11
BRAVE NEW WORLDS

A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
Lawrence Krauss

---

I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Because Krauss wanted you to stir people like you with that word.

As far as I'm aware, you need a brain to have a mind and consciousness.
If consciousness requires a mind, then how can mindlessness be an element in consciousness?

Initially, you have stated that “Natural phenomenon is mindless” and this natural phenomenon has constructed the brain and according to you, there resides mind and extremely complex processing (the consciousness).

If you say you are the product of blind, mindless, and unguided process then why should I believe in any of your word or what makes you confident in your own actions.

If I find something mindless, blind, and unguided then my first priority would be to keep myself away from it.

At the heart of the matter, it seems to me that the brain is just a mechanistic organ - the mind generated therein is also mechanistic...
It's just that it's such a complex beast that we cannot hope to comprehend it without the proper tools... and, as of today, we do not possess such tools.
So, charlatans and mystics will go on convincing people that there's some great mind that requires no brain, so we can calm our own awareness of mortality.

My body remains lively through feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage... and... sleeping

Is life responsible for your feeding and breathing or feeding and breathing keep you alive? If feeding and breathing, keep you alive does that mean with the infinite supplies of food and other necessities you can be immortal!

If my body kept fixing itself perfectly, I guess that yes, I could be immortal...
But the copies introduce mistakes which, ultimately, lead to death.

Harris Wrote: Only dead can tell what death is and I think you are still alive.

Pocaracas Wrote:
Be not so sure...
Death is, to put it simply, the cessation of an individual's life.

Can you define “cessation” and its cause?

A human is typically considered dead when he is brain-dead.
And brain death occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to keep working for about 5 minutes.
Without oxygen, the information that is carried through the synapses stops.

Simultaneously, the immune system stops working, so bacteria begin their relentless task of surviving by eating away at the human's fleshy bits.... and the body deteriorates.

Harris Wrote:
Perhaps you know the mechanics of sensory system and I do not argue on that but can you or anyone interpret what actually SENSE is.

Pocaracas Wrote:
Make sense man. What do you mean?

Sense is the relation of experiences to objects, to language and to the perceiving self or subject. In addition to the five types of senses, sense is also identified as “mental perception” (as of pleasures, pains and desires) and apperception (awareness of awareness).

I repeat my question, What is pain. What is Pleasure? What is sadness? What is delight? …“What actually SENSE is?”

Have you tried a dictionary?
pleasure: enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight.
sadness: affected by unhappiness or grief; sorrowful or mournful
delight: a high degree of pleasure or enjoyment; joy; rapture
Sense: a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body

What you want to say is that the actual sensations of those and other events are impossible to put into words, except through the usage of the words which have been made up purposefully for describing them.
e.g: yellow is the color of most of this smiley:

Harris Wrote:
Do not overlook the fact that the law of gravity is based only on experience.

“Gravity must be Caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether that agent be material or immaterial I leave to the consideration of my readers”
(Newton’s Letter to Bentley 25 February 1692).

Pocaracas Wrote:
Like all physical laws...

Other than gravity, we know the nature of agents in almost all physical laws.

What? photons?
Why do photons exist, where do they come from? what are they made of?

Harris Wrote:
My question was “Is the universe finite or infinite?” and
Your answer is “Who knows?”

Pocaracas Wrote:
Do you know?
Do you know of anyone who knows?
I don't know and I fail to realize how anyone could know.

So you agree that science cannot answer whether “universe is finite or infinite”

Science may, one day... it tries.
Religion knows nothing...

Harris Wrote:
Quantum Vacuum has PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and so it is not NOTHINGNESS.

Pocaracas Wrote:
No way!!!!!
Krauss' nothing is not really nothing?!!?
No shit, Sherlock!?!!

That's the whole basis of the thing: the nothing you want to be prior to some god's creation of everything... that nothing was never there.... according to the theory.

The vacuum that has always been and is commonly thought of as nothing is, in fact, something.
That's the whole point and Krauss was pulling your leg when he called it nothing.. very well aware of all the crap that would flow from it!

Krauss is not a philosopher and he may not understand the difference between “Absolute Nothingness” that is no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive and “Vacuum” which is the absence of matter and it is not “Absolute Nothingness”

If Krauss emphasising that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” rather it is eternal then he should not build his conclusions on speculative ideas rather as a physicist he should come up with some elegant scientific theory, which can clearly demonstrate that quantum vacuum is eternal.

Have you read his paper?
Or are you just going by his book written purposefully for the broader audience and to annoy religious, specially, creationists?

---

If I were to tell you that if you walk in a straight line always forward, you'll come to the same point where you started, would you believe me?

A thousand years ago, you'd find it very hard, huh?

Today, you can even accept gravitational lensing effects where the fabric of space-time itself can get bent and moving in a straight line (like light would do) means moving in a curved line.

Physical reality isn't particularly simple, at it's core. And if even physicists find it difficult to wrap their minds around the theories, then how do you think lay-people will (and do) wrap their head around them? They can't, you can't. So don't misrepresent them with whatever is your god-biased version of the theory.

I am not the one who is pulling out mystical concepts like “natural selection” which has no foot and no head or quantum this and quantum that. Many scientists are not sure about the accuracy of these theories, including those who have designed them.

“The bottom line is that we have no clear idea how to describe the entire mathematical structure of String Theory or what building blocks, if any, will win the title of “most fundamental.””

“Epilogue”
The Cosmis Landscape
"String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
Leonard Susskind

You guys are pulling out these hazy ideas to confuse the minds of lay people in order to divert their attentions from the concept of God.

---

I always try to bring common sense ideas based on intuitive logic that require no scientific background.

And you expect to be taken seriously?
It is known that our intuition is ill-equipped for the most basic questions of reality, and yet you wish to make use of it to answer some even more complex questions?

Grow up.