>
> IF you can't deffine "God" before you even start. the rest is just
> bullshit.
I can, and I'll use your words
"god .....is just bullshit"
>
> O: "All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of
> the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"
>
> So if I were to put the planet Jupiter near the surface of the Earth
> it would accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2? What about an object of infinite
> mass? What about a photon? In fact, all objects of different masses
> will accelerate differently.
>
The formula you're questioning is valid in a vacuum. In the atmosphere, wind
resistance on a falling object will prevent acceleration beyond a certain
point. This is known as terminal velocity. Objects of the same density will
generally fall at the same rate and reach the same TV, and depending on
their shape. A one pound steel ball, for example, would reach a higher
terminal velocity than a one pound steel cube., but they would both reach
their terminal velocities according to the formula. A ten pound steel ball
would reach close to the same terminal velocity as a one pound steel ball,
and they would accelerate at the same rate. It isn't mass that's the issue,
it's density.
Essentially All objects will accelerate to their terminal velocity at the
same rate.
>
> THE PROUF OF GOD ITS AROND US AND WITH IN US WE JUST HAVE TO FIEL IT
> BUT WE CAN'T IF WE DONT HAVE ANY FIELING. THAT IS THE DEFIRANCE
> BETWING THE ANIMAL AND HUMANE.
>
I can't take this guy
<plonk>
> not exist. How do I know that they are truths? One thing that
> Christians believe is that we are God's children, as such, we have the
> ability to know right from wrong and discern truth (be it secular
> truth or spiritual truth). We are born with this intelligence.
Incorrect. You were born with an innate sense, but that sense is heavily
altered on the indoctrination you received as a child. Depending on how
malleable your personality is, that indoctrination may or may not take
precedence over your innate sense. For example, I was born with an innate
sense that god was load of horseshit, since I remember questioning the whole
concept as early as 8, while attending CCD until I was 12. Some children
will be molded to other ideas, such as children brought up in the FLDS
church. Given the opportunity, the adults will brainwash these children into
thinking that women are subservient to men and that forced marriage and
subsequent rape is ordained by scripture. If we were all born with this
god-given sense of right and wrong, then clearly, the FLDS would not
survive, wars would not be fought over religion, and people would not be
murdered over different interpretations of this god.
> I believe that a creator has always existed, no beginning and no end.
A classic cop-out. You're defining an entity that must live outside our
observable dimensions. Therefore, you always have the out ' we can't ever
see god until we transcend this dimension'. Yet, you use as evidence, a book
allegedly dictated by this extra-dimensional being, and based on that, we
should take your word for it.
No, this is pure faith on your part. It has no basis whatsoever in reality.
> Consider the two statements:
>
> 1) If one believes in a creator, then one sees the creator's hand in
>
> 2) If one believes in string theory then it is logical to believe in
Except that string theory has been arrived upon by observable phenomenon IT
wasn't a presupposed theory that was created out of the ether. That's the
difference. In case 1, the theist starts from an established point of view
and looks for evidence to support it, and unfortunately (in most cases)
disregards evidence that contradicts the pre-conclusion. In case 2, the
scientist looks at the data and _then_ looks for an explanation following
leads that lead to more experimentation and evidence. Heres the big twist,
when the scientist finds the data disproves his theory, he discards the
theory, not the data.
> believe in a god. So both our arguments in this case are invalid.
The argument from science is sustainable with observable evidence.
>> is consistently being found that the underlying structure and laws of
>> the universe are less in number.
>
> This is an opinion. Just like Einstein so keenly pointed out, "No
> amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment
> can prove me wrong."
First, the first statement is wrong. Second the two statements have nothing
to do with each other.
> Newton may also have felt the same way about
> consistently finding that the underlying structure and laws of the
> universe were less in number.
Yes, he _may_ have. I assume you have some credible evidence to support
this?
> We know better today and it would be
> presumptuous on humanity's part to assume otherwise.
1) we know better than what newton may or may not have felt? How would we
know?
2) Where do you get the idea that science is _not_ leading us toward a grand
unification theory?
> It has taken
> thousands of years and millions of people putting there heads together
> to bring science to its current level of understanding, who is to say
> we're over the summit?
No one. Have you heard anyone say that?
>The paradigm shift in the world of science
> toward Einstein's theory of relativity didn't make things simpler. It
> was simpler to believe in the ether.
It made things more understandable, and from that aspect it's simpler.
FWIW - it's easier to believe in god than practice any form of productive
scientific research. Don't understand it? the answers simple. god did it.
Where would we be if that were the prevailing thought?
>> intelligent source, or merely the compulsion to fill in a blank with
>> "God"?
>
> I could say the same thing about dark matter or dark energy.
And you would be wrong
>Are they
> just trying to "fill in the blank" in their formulas or is there
> empirical evidence that these exist?
yes. (I'll need rapps help on that one, I'm not a physicist)
> I could say that they are
> compelled to force their models to fit their observations and that
> neither one really exists.
As was stated earlier, science follows the data, The same is not true of
god.
From: "Trajan" <Is4...@gmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Discussion on
the-support-of-the-premise-no-god-exists-via-the-scientific-method
>
> Hi Trajan here:
> Can anyone prove scientifically that George Washington was the first
> president of the US and a General in the Revolutionary war?
> Can anyone prove without doubt that Dr. Martin Luther King was the
> nation's foremost civil rights leader again, "Scientifically?"
> The answer is NO! Why? Because for anyone to scientifically prove
> anything they must be able to repeat the same experiment over and over
> again and obtain the same result.
Yes, We can do that, and have done that. Where did you get the idea we
can't?
> Of course I KNOW that the above 2 people were who it says they were
> and how do I come to this conclusion? By reading books and history
> about them. THAT and THAT alone is the proof. BUT...It is NOT
> scientific proof.
Sure it is. If you were to start from scratch by asking 'how did the US come
to be?', your research would lead you to only one conclusion in the form of
a complicated series of events, in which george washington was a central
figure. It's not just _a_ history book, there are reams of corroborating and
independent sources from the period, as well as _personally_ written
documentation, and the legacy of his actions. The last piece is that we know
where he's buried, and we have several personal artifacts. This is
repeatable 'experimentation' which leads to the same result. You can't do
this with god.
> By the same token one cannot seriously ask the question to anyone to
> SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE the existence of God. Why? because the scientific
> pre-requisite of obtaining PROOF by repeated experiments will ALWAYS
> come into play.
agree to the conclusion, but not the precursor.
> So, like George Washington and Dr. King, God too is evidenced by books
> and writings about Him. Both secular and religious.
First off, Dr. King is a separate issue. We have video of Dr. king, so he's
off the table with this experiment. As far as god is concerned, you have no
evidence except the writings of people who _said_ they spoke to god. Here's
the tricky part....we don't know who wrote the old testament. In order for
the documentation to be considered reliable, you have to be able to vet the
author by corroborating their research. We cannot do that with the old
testament.
> We Christians rely
> on the bible
unreliable due to the above
> the dead sea scrolls, the Jewish Wars and Antiquities by
> Josephus and hundreds of other writings that tell us that God does
> indeed exist
No, these tell us that jesus existed. They only reference god in that jesus
is described as a believer
> and that Jesus Christ came as God in the flesh, lived,
> died for man's sin and rose again alive at the right hand of God the
> Father.
no, the literature you describe was speculative. These 'witnesses' that
allegedly saw some figure they consider to be some reincarnate form of jesus
were describing some character that acted and sounded a lot like jesus, but
didn't look like him. That isn't exaclty 'proof'.
> And we have many MANY more writings to prove God's existence
> than ANYONE else in the history of the world.
Except that all of these writings are based on the bible, which we've
already shown to not be a reliable source, in that we can verify neither the
authors or their sources.
> Then there is that ever present subject of faith. The evidence of
> things seen and the substance of things hoped for.
then why can't we include the billions of prayers _not_ answered in the
formula?
> If we can have
> faith that the envelope we drop in a mailbox will go through the
> hundreds of hands, cars, and planes etc., it takes to get to to it's
> destination by mistake prone Man, then why is it so hard to believe in
> the same type of faith that God IS Who He says He is?
This one has to go into Dag's stupid analogy file. You're really equating
the us postal service to the creation of the universe?
If the letter were to magically appear at it's destination, you might have a
point, but it doesn't. Mail delivery has been a process that has been
devolped and automated over the past 150 years, and all it does is deliver
mail. It doesn't create the universe. dumb, dumb, dumb
> Scientific proof of God? No. Can't help you there anymore then you can
> help me scientifically prove to me that ANY person that is not
> physically present ever existed.
Wrong, as is detailed above.
> there all day long. The bible, (God's Word) tons of other written
> materials and faith tell me that God is real and HIs life changing
> ways testify to Him every day.
Faith is ALL you have. The bible is not a verifiable source, and all other
documentation praising god is based on that book, therefore, when you sart
out with a questionable source, all extrapolations of that are equally if
not more suspect.
> Oh and that "Big Bang?" Come on. Tell the last time you had a
> catastrophic explosion that resulted in A PERFECTLY ORDERED UNIVERSE
> AND NOT CHAOS.
Who ever said the universe was perfectly ordered? It isn't, except for a few
notable exceptions. You need a short science lesson. There is no such thing
as chaos. Everything reaches a certain level of stability known as
'entropy'. The universe as a whole has not reached entropy, as the big bang
is still exploding.
> Every time I've seen something blow up the end result
> is ALWAYS chaos.
And here's where we finally arrive at the real issue, your inability to gasp
complex issues such as quantum mechanics and entropy. The problem is that
you have neither the intellect or imagination to get passed basic science,
and your ego won't allow you to consider that there are things you can't
understand, yet others can, therefore, there must be god, because it's easy
to check your brain at the door and not have to think any longer.
>The chances of that happening are about as slim as
> Websters complete unabridged Dictionary being the result of an
> explosion in a printing factory.
Now you're getting it.