Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 wanted to make sure ATB hears that:D Loud and clear. To bring the discussion back full circle, I think science may eventually explain the mechanism behind gravity, but it will never explain why the force of gravity exists. Similarly, it will not explain why the universe exists. Even if the universe always existed, I believe that this doesn't immediately negate the possibility of a creator who exists outside time and thus could bring into being something everlasting. If you pressed me, I wouldn't be able to explain how this might be possible, but I'm only human. I cannot see how science might ever disprove the existence of God. And seeing as how I'll never know, I'll believe in a God because it makes me happier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I can't believe how common it is for people to post a thread about something, get completely owned on that thread, and then months later start posting in a different thread about the same topic.Portisizzle, your views on infinity were entirely discredited in a thread a few months ago. You've ignored all of that and said, "Oh, look at me--I'm a victim! All these INTELLECTUALS [as though it's a bad thing to be smart] are ganging up on me and telling me that they understand something I don't." I think it's clear from historical threads that a lot of people understand certain logical and mathematical concepts that you do not. . That is a totally unfair assessment of where I stand. You boys are proposing that the laws of gravity are wrong. Yet I make an argument about how I feel with regards to "infinity" and all of a sudden I am talking out of my ass. Sorry you don't see my point. And for the record what is this deal with OWNED this and POWED that? Have we reduced ourselves to playground ego tapping, or what?? You have your point I have mine. I really do not expect people to reject the notions of infinity thus throwing down the toilet Calculus. Of course I did not expect to see someone reject the laws of gravity. I thought that was a sacred scientific "law". ohkay............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 That is a totally unfair assessment of where I stand.You boys are proposing that the laws of gravity are wrong. Yet I make an argument about how I feel with regards to "infinity" and all of a sudden I am talking out of my ass. Sorry you don't see my point. And for the record what is this deal with OWNED this and POWED that? Have we reduced ourselves to playground ego tapping, or what?? You have your point I have mine. I really do not expect people to reject the notions of infinity thus throwing down the toilet Calculus. Of course I did not expect to see someone reject the laws of gravity. I thought that was a sacred scientific "law". ohkay............... No, its that your arguments against "infinity" are baseless and show a complete lack of understanding of fundamental mathematics. And you refuse to acknowledge mathematical proof that infinity exists, even though you readily turn to mathematics (incorrectly) to prove that something cannot come from nothing....you can't have it both ways. Again, address these and maybe someone will take you seriously: If y=2x, how many possible y values are there? what is a/0? What is the largest possible value of 2^z?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Sorry you don't see my point. And for the record what is this deal with OWNED this and POWED that? Have we reduced ourselves to playground ego tapping, or what?? I agree that had no place in the thread. Of course I did not expect to see someone reject the laws of gravity.I thought that was a sacred scientific "law". Again, there's no such thing as a sacred scientific law. They last only until they are disproved. This is the difference between science and religion as methods of explaining the physical world. And it's common even in high school level physics classes to point out that Newton's Theory of Gravity is not the final word on the subject. As ATB has pointed out, it breaks down at high speeds and on the quantum level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 whereas scientists are open to all possibilities. Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I agree that had no place in the thread. I disagree...HOF44 showed the logical loophole in portisizzle's "something cannot come from nothing" argument, which he failed to even address...he got owned. Until he addresses that, he is owned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Wrong. :doh: Is that all you got?? I think its been clearly stated throughout this thread that Scientists are open to all possibilities, and that we are still guessing at the universe's origins...how is that wrong?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I disagree...HOF44 showed the logical loophole in portisizzle's "something cannot come from nothing" argument, which he failed to even address...he got owned. Until he addresses that, he is owned... Let me put it this way: it doesn't accomplish anything. All it does is make Portisizzle defensive and less willing to answer your questions. If we're going to work to get the Tailgate back to where it was, that's one type of post we can do without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Let me put it this way: it doesn't accomplish anything. All it does is make Portisizzle defensive and less willing to answer your questions.If we're going to work to get the Tailgate back to where it was, that's one type of post we can do without. Fair enough...I'll refrain from using the "owned" post anymore! However I would argue that if portisizzle refuses to even acknowledge posts that appear to completely debunk his theory, how is it possible to have an intelligent debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No, its that your arguments against "infinity" are baseless and show a complete lack of understanding of fundamental mathematics. And you refuse to acknowledge mathematical proof that infinity exists, even though you readily turn to mathematics (incorrectly) to prove that something cannot come from nothing....you can't have it both ways.Again, address these and maybe someone will take you seriously: If y=2x, how many possible y values are there? what is a/0? What is the largest possible value of 2^z?? I am sure arguments against "gravity" were baseless at some point in the past as well. And if my answer to your question means somebody will take me seriously then I guess I will not be taken seriously. But if you have a point then by all means make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Let me put it this way: it doesn't accomplish anything. All it does is make Portisizzle defensive and less willing to answer your questions.If we're going to work to get the Tailgate back to where it was, that's one type of post we can do without. Agreed, both as a member and as a moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Fair enough...I'll refrain from using the "owned" post anymore! However I would argue that if portisizzle refuses to even acknowledge posts that appear to completely debunk his theory, how is it possible to have an intelligent debate? In some ways it's not, but there's nothing you can do about that. I didn't intend my post to sound so preachy, but I think you took it well. And Portisizzle, I don't mean to talk about you like you can't read every word we're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Fair enough...I'll refrain from using the "owned" post anymore! However I would argue that if portisizzle refuses to even acknowledge posts that appear to completely debunk his theory, how is it possible to have an intelligent debate? my theory? .... MY THEORY?!?!?!?!?!!?? Dr. P-Sizzy doesn't have a ****ing theory. I am just trying to have a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I know I've recommended this before, but I have to recommend it again: Science of G-d. I don't necessarily agree with everything in that book, but it'll give your own view points a run for their money--no matter where they lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I know this is a common question, but never see it answered by christians with a good explanation.. They just say God is God. So: What's the rational arguement on what, who, and how was God created? Apparently God created everything if you believe creationism. So if God existed before this big blue marble, how does that happen? God had to be created somehow. Does this come back to a scientific arguement at this point. Once it comes back to this who's to say evolution isn't the answer on why we're here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I agree that had no place in the thread. Upon reflection, I agree. Portisizzle, I apologize for my tone. It's been a long week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I am sure arguments against "gravity" were baseless at some point in the past as well. And if my answer to your question means somebody will take me seriously then I guess I will not be taken seriously. But if you have a point then by all means make it. Okay, your "argument." You stated a x 0 = 0 as proof that something cannot come from nothing. I'm simpy asking you to evaluate these statements: If y=2x, how many possible y values are there? what is a/0? What is the largest possible value of 2^z?? Which you continue to refuse to do. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I know this is a common question, but never see it answered by christians with a good explanation.. They just say God is God. So:What's the rational arguement on what, who, and how was God created? Apparently God created everything if you believe creationism. So if God existed before this big blue marble, how does that happen? God had to be created somehow. Does this come back to a scientific arguement at this point. Once it comes back to this who's to say evolution isn't the answer on why we're here. I'm no expert, but I would imagine that there is no Chicken and the Egg argument with G-d. Those who believe in Him (or Her or It) believe that G-d is eternal such that He has no beginning and no end. An example of this in the Christian Tradition is on alters (an other religious pariphenilia) at many Christian churches which tend to have an alpha and an omega (i.e., the A to Z of the greek alphabet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I'm no expert, but I would imagine that there is no Chicken and the Egg argument with G-d. Those who believe in Him (or Her or It) believe that G-d is eternal such that He has no beginning and no end. An example of this in the Christian Tradition is on alters (an other religious pariphenilia) at many Christian churches which tend to have an alpha and an omega (i.e., the A to Z of the greek alphabet). And thus the loophole which keeps this argument going and going and going and going is presented; Creationists: the universe cannot have come from nothing, it had to have been created. Scientists: Well then what about god? What created god? Creationists: ....God was not created. He just was. Scientists: But then why can't the universe follow that same rationale? Creationists: ...because that doesn't fit in with our views of god, so we reject that hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html theory of gravity/ relativity. explains how gravity was incomplete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Wrong. i stand on your side of the argument, but i have to disagree with you on this, most scientists are open to all possibilities with given data and facts, only a small but vocal few are bigots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 LMAO!! My wife is a third grade teacher who teaches science. She just asked me if she should stop teaching gravity to her kids. She is on Newton as we speak. :laugh: :laugh: :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 i stand on your side of the argument, but i have to disagree with you on this, most scientists are open to all possibilities with given data and facts, only a small but vocal few are bigots Then those who speak for the profession on this site are giving me a bad example with which to base my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 LMAO!!My wife is a third grade teacher who teaches science. She just asked me if she should stop teaching gravity to her kids. She is on Newton as we speak. :laugh: :laugh: :notworthy Portisizzle, if you think we mean your wife should stop teaching gravity to her kids, you're either failing to understand or intentionally misrepresenting what we've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 i stand on your side of the argument, but i have to disagree with you on this, most scientists are open to all possibilities with given data and facts, only a small but vocal few are bigots Exactly...I believe most credible scientists, if presented with irrefutable proof of God's existence, would agree (after their own testing, of course) that God does in fact exist. And also, don't forget that there are many who follow both science and religion. In fact, the man who first propsed the big-bang theory was a Jesuit priest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.