On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[MilesAbbott81]

[The Grand Nudger]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

[MilesAbbott81]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

It isn't so much that there are laws that make existence possible, but that there are laws which preclude the possibility of existence, particularly in the case of the Big Bang. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics), therefore existence is impossible, unless you  want to argue that the universe isn't a closed system, which the folks on your side would take issue with.

Then the 2nd law of thermodynamics completely nullifies the possibility of the Big Bang.

Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that these arguments aren't new here. I made them myself some time ago.

And I don't really see that I'm equivocating between the supernatural and God. You can call Him what you like; the bottom line is that existence can't be explained by anything other than a supernatural source. There is simply no way, and any attempt to argue the point is an effort in absolute futility.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

It isn't so much that there are laws that make existence possible, but that there are laws which preclude the possibility of existence, particularly in the case of the Big Bang. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics), therefore existence is impossible, unless you  want to argue that the universe isn't a closed system, which the folks on your side would take issue with.

 
This explanation is factually incorrect, doesn't follow, and is inconsistent with the position that you espouse.  Since we're on the subject of impossibility, it's impossible for an assertion to be more wrong than that.

To violate the first law of thermodynamics bb cosmology would have to make claims that it doesn't make.  It would still be the case that we exist, and thus, that existence is possible by definition, and if something about the first law of thermodynamics -did- make existence impossible, then it would be equally impossible for a god to have created the universe.  

Then the 2nd law of thermodynamics completely nullifies the possibility of the Big Bang.

Can you explain why you think so?  

Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that these arguments aren't new here. I made them myself some time ago.

OFC they aren't..these arguments aren't new anywhere.  Neither are the reasons that they are malformed.  

And I don't really see that I'm equivocating between the supernatural and God. You can call Him what you like; the bottom line is that existence can't be explained by anything other than a supernatural source. There is simply no way, and any attempt to argue the point is an effort in absolute futility.

You actually wrote "supernatural" and then directly behind in parenthesis "god".  You've done it again here. A "supernatural source" is not equivalent to "a god". That's equivocation.   In any case, this assertion is an argument from ignorance.  You can't explain it, but you can't explain it by reference to the supernatural or god, either, if you hold to these misconceptions.  Broadly, if you're going to assert (rightly or wrongly) that some x makes y impossible, the use case for this assertion cannot be it's immediate contradiction by the invocation of some z. If z can do it, then y isn't impossible nor does x make it so.

Meanwhile, others can and have explained the thing you think is impossible to explain. I think that you have a huge problem with the concept of impossibility. By all means, believe in a tinkergod if that's what floats your fancy, but understand that the constraints you place on the universe will influence this tinkers creative efficacy regardless of whether or not it impacts it's creative capacity. If it's impossible for y in this universe, then a god couldn't do y in this universe. Maybe in some other universe it could..because this is not gods personal limitation, but in this universe that path is blocked. As a thoroughly mundane example...I'm perfectly capable of typing this response to you, but this potential is moot if I'm in a room with no computers.

In sum, you've accidentally closed the door on your god in a failed attempt to discredit natural explanations.

*TLDR version: don't you think someone might have noticed if your assertions regarding the laws of thermodynamics and bb cosmology were true, and made both their careers and a credible run at a nobel? Do you appreciate the unavoidable implications of your position wholly apart from any consideration of gods?

[tackattack]

Did someone say unicorns. I believe unicorns exist because they're referenced in the bible somewhere around 7 times.

clarifying, ... not sarcasm

[possibletarian]

[Deesse23]

What do you think of C14 dating and Dendrochonology?

Absolutely everything that purports to date the earth older than 6,000 years is totally wrong.

Ah, how could i have been so ignorant.    Of course everything "not 6k" is wrong, because.......

....yeah, why?  
What is wrong with C14 and Dendrochronology, particularly since their results are matching (and matching other methods as well).  

And here is the problem that you atheists in particular have. It doesn't matter how many creationist scientists with doctorates make their case against every single one of your claims

C14 dating and Dendrochronology has nothing to do with atheism. Its all science. Please demonstrate how its not reliable, and why it has been delivering reliable results nevertheless.
There are also no "creationist scientists". There are scientists who support theories that are in accordance with experimeants and data, and there are those who dont.
Am also not an atheist for starters i am a sceptic. Atheism is a result of my scepticism. I am not making claims, you and "creationist scientists" are making claims. Please leave it to me to find the claims compelling or not. This is not a church where people are taught what and how to think.
Its rich of you to accuse others of having biases after starting your rant by defining the people backing up your position as biased (towards creationism).  

You assume that just because one is a creationist that he or she isn't a true scientist because you don't want to believe what they have to say.

No i dont, but you do assume that i assume. Stop telling me what i think. Stop being so fucking arrogant and pretentious, it doesnt support your argument well. I have already told you, that i want to believe what can be demonstrated as being true, aka. in accordance with reality.

because I doubt even 10% of you have a truly solid understanding of the science of astrophysics, geology, or biology.

I am an electronics engineer since ca. 1995, have done 3 semesters math, 2 physics, including relativity ("what can you see when a teapot approaches you with speeds faster than light"). I have been taught the background of Maxwells equations. I have hacked countless linear, surface and volumetric integrals. I have made countless calculations within the realm of imaginary numbers. I have made fourier transformations back and forth and on top of that some Laplace- and Z-Transformations (you may want to google this one, pilgrim). I have been engaged in high frequency electronics, where stuff like ohms law simply doesnt work anymore, and where you have to go back to Matrices/Arrays in order to get any meaningful results. I took part in a R&D project to measure EEG live in a NMR. Do you have the slightest clue what measuring 50µV in a 1T environment means? I have been part of doing basic research for an electronic device enabling people with spinal chord injury to be able to measure the fluid level in their bladder (with ultrasound) and be able to relieve themselves with a simple click (a "bladder stimulator"), instead to have to rely on catheters. The same device was used to help people with chronic pain to be able to switch off their pain instead of becoming opioid users (by having the device attached to their spinal nerve). I have seen countless Beagles being sacrificed on the altar of human health, and the test persons with the pain relief devices begging us to leave them one, which we werent allowed for legal reasons of course (we were still in early R&D)
I ended up being in the top 30% performers of my university, which is one of the more renowed ones in my country, which is a leading country in central europe in science for at least 200 years. My personal interests include astrophysics and astronomy.

How about you, pilgrim?

I am not saying that any of this makes any of my claims correct, but i am tired of being told how ignorant i am by people who are so scientifically illiterate (on the very top of Dunning Kruger´s Olympus Mons) that they havent the slightest clue how utterly ignorant they are.
I am confident i have forgotten more science $hit that you can ever dream of to ever learn to know in your life. I say "dream of", since you obviously have no interest to get a solid education at all, probably dont know how to if you wanted.

But you have to gall to come to a random www forum and post BS 24/7. Fucking poser.

But more than all of this, the real problem is hubris. The truth is that we know very little about geology (we're still theorizing about the earth's core), astronomy (we can hardly see objects in our own solar system), and biology (we can't cure viruses or cancer, at least through man-made solutions). We hardly understand dieting, which has constantly changing theories, yet we think to date the universe to the point where we can confidently declare that it's 13.8 BILLION years old, a number that has changed several times over the last century?

The fact that you are ignorant about ca. anything doesnt mean that everyone else is too. Hybris is to assume exactly that, as you are doing.

BILLION makes you scared? Pretty big number, eh? Poor pilgrim.
I have measured timescales in the sub-ns range (laser rangefinder: 1ns = 30cm. If you want to be accurate, you have to be better than a nanosecond. Try to google "nano", pilgrim).
I have also measured electric capacitances in the sub-pF range, with self made circuitries. Try to google "piko" (hint: its 1/1000 of a billionth)

Reality (and [sometimes not so] humble me) dont give a fuck about your utter lack of imagination, and education.

[Drich]

Absolutely everything that purports to date the earth older than 6,000 years is totally wrong.

Ah, how could i have been so ignorant.    Of course everything "not 6k" is wrong, because.......

....yeah, why?  
What is wrong with C14 and Dendrochronology, particularly since their results are matching (and matching other methods as well).  

And here is the problem that you atheists in particular have. It doesn't matter how many creationist scientists with doctorates make their case against every single one of your claims

C14 dating and Dendrochronology has nothing to do with atheism. Its all science. Please demonstrate how its not reliable, and why it has been delivering reliable results nevertheless.
There are also no "creationist scientists". There are scientists who support theories that are in accordance with experimeants and data, and there are those who dont.
Am also not an atheist for starters i am a sceptic. Atheism is a result of my scepticism. I am not making claims, you and "creationist scientists" are making claims. Please leave it to me to find the claims compelling or not. This is not a church where people are taught what and how to think.
Its rich of you to accuse others of having biases after starting your rant by defining the people backing up your position as biased (towards creationism).  

You assume that just because one is a creationist that he or she isn't a true scientist because you don't want to believe what they have to say.

No i dont, but you do assume that i assume. Stop telling me what i think. Stop being so fucking arrogant and pretentious, it doesnt support your argument well. I have already told you, that i want to believe what can be demonstrated as being true, aka. in accordance with reality.

because I doubt even 10% of you have a truly solid understanding of the science of astrophysics, geology, or biology.

I am an electronics engineer since ca. 1995, have done 3 semesters math, 2 physics, including relativity ("what can you see when a teapot approaches you with speeds faster than light"). I have been taught the background of Maxwells equations. I have hacked countless linear, surface and volumetric integrals. I have made countless calculations within the realm of imaginary numbers. I have made fourier transformations back and forth and on top of that some Laplace- and Z-Transformations (you may want to google this one, pilgrim). I have been engaged in high frequency electronics, where stuff like ohms law simply doesnt work anymore, and where you have to go back to Matrices/Arrays in order to get any meaningful results. I took part in a R&D project to measure EEG live in a NMR. Do you have the slightest clue what measuring 50µV in a 1T environment means? I have been part of doing basic research for an electronic device enabling people with spinal chord injury to be able to measure the fluid level in their bladder (with ultrasound) and be able to relieve themselves with a simple click (a "bladder stimulator"), instead to have to rely on catheters. The same device was used to help people with chronic pain to be able to switch off their pain instead of becoming opioid users (by having the device attached to their spinal nerve). I have seen countless Beagles being sacrificed on the altar of human health, and the test persons with the pain relief devices begging us to leave them one, which we werent allowed for legal reasons of course (we were still in early R&D)
I ended up being in the top 30% performers of my university, which is one of the more renowed ones in my country, which is a leading country in central europe in science for at least 200 years. My personal interests include astrophysics and astronomy.

How about you, pilgrim?

I am not saying that any of this makes any of my claims correct, but i am tired of being told how ignorant i am by people who are so scientifically illiterate (on the very top of Dunning Kruger´s Olympus Mons) that they havent the slightest clue how utterly ignorant they are.
I am confident i have forgotten more science $hit that you can ever dream of to ever learn to know in your life. I say "dream of", since you obviously have no interest to get a solid education at all, probably dont know how to if you wanted.

But you have to gall to come to a random www forum and post BS 24/7. Fucking poser.

But more than all of this, the real problem is hubris. The truth is that we know very little about geology (we're still theorizing about the earth's core), astronomy (we can hardly see objects in our own solar system), and biology (we can't cure viruses or cancer, at least through man-made solutions). We hardly understand dieting, which has constantly changing theories, yet we think to date the universe to the point where we can confidently declare that it's 13.8 BILLION years old, a number that has changed several times over the last century?

The fact that you are ignorant about ca. anything doesnt mean that everyone else is too. Hybris is to assume exactly that, as you are doing.

BILLION makes you scared? Pretty big number, eh? Poor pilgrim.
I have measured timescales in the sub-ns range (laser rangefinder: 1ns = 30cm. If you want to be accurate, you have to be better than a nanosecond. Try to google "nano", pilgrim).
I have also measured electric capacitances in the sub-pF range, with self made circuitries. Try to google "piko" (hint: its 1/1000 of a billionth)

Reality (and [sometimes not so] humble me) dont give a fuck about your utter lack of imagination, and education.

 
So who's shmeckle is bigger?

because all I see is someone with a 'different' skill set avoiding the points made by trying to project a big red herring adorned with also sort of things indoctrinated people who are train to respect .. Here's your problem sport. you ability to calculate or measure you shmeckle with in a 'piko' doesn't actually answer the questions nor address the problem of 'hubris that was pointed out and you clearly demonstrated with your pomp and flourish of irrelevant material.

So despite your heavy resume you opponent here seems to have you by the short and curlies because you have failed to topically address anything he pointed out.. rather you seem to be under the idea that f you can flash enough resume/shmeckle about you do not have to answer those questions.

Here's the thing sport I'm not only a refrigeration engineer ( I have personally designed patented and pushed to manufacture , market and sell 13 different models of transport refrigeration systems. ( it is What keep s ice cream ice cream and not sludge from the factory to your supermarket/I know it is not building sensor to tell people when to pee, but never the less society/cities would not be possible without it.) I am also a salesman and a multiple business owner and I know from all side when someone is pouring down a shit storm to try and worm their way out of a situation. You are trying to sell something no one asked for. as a engineer I am ashamed at how you have represented your trade by not providing one ounce of the requested or relevant data. you shown nothing but hubris in displaying your own resume which was identified to you as your primary problem.. so what was your solution?!?! you pour more hubris like gas on an open flame... You fortify the original diagnosis... as an engineer how could yoube so short sighted as to not see yourself acting out in real time what someone has identified as your primary failing in comprehension? If you continue to self identify as an engineer and continue this path of foolishness i am going to have to change my own job description.


Anyway that is my two cents, my third cent would be try and use your research ability and answer a question or two before you move straight into dick measuring.

[possibletarian]

Did someone say unicorns. I believe unicorns exist because they're referenced in the bible somewhere around 7 times.

clarifying, ... not sarcasm

I think real unicorns would be awesome !!

[Abaddon_ire]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

It isn't so much that there are laws that make existence possible, but that there are laws which preclude the possibility of existence, particularly in the case of the Big Bang. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics), therefore existence is impossible, unless you  want to argue that the universe isn't a closed system, which the folks on your side would take issue with.

False. Nobody claims the big bang created energy.

Then the 2nd law of thermodynamics completely nullifies the possibility of the Big Bang.

False. The second law depends on the big bang.

Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that these arguments aren't new here. I made them myself some time ago.

And the answers are the same.

And I don't really see that I'm equivocating between the supernatural and God. You can call Him what you like; the bottom line is that existence can't be explained by anything other than a supernatural source. There is simply no way, and any attempt to argue the point is an effort in absolute futility.

Argument from ignorance.

Bluntly, you present a reformed "god of the gaps" argument, but the gaps are all of your imagining.