Addicted to the almighty

[philh 0]

here is the abstract form the paper that appeared in Nature. Im sure you are familair with Nature as the most prestigousa scientic peer review journaled in the world. Now if you have some peer reviewed papers that destroy this argument please present them otherwise you dont have a leg to stand on. What you have presented is one scientists personal opinion. Bt as you have corectly shown other scienists do not agree. But science does not move forward by opinion it moves forward by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals. So if you dont have that you dont have anything.




Nature 246, 396 - 397 (14 December 1973); doi:10.1038/246396a0



Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?


EDWARD P. TRYON


Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hunter College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10021


The author proposes a big bang model in which our Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum, in the sense of quantum field theory. The model predicts a Universe which is homogeneous, isotropic and closed, and consists equally of matter and anti-matter. All these predictions are supported by, or consistent with, present observations.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

You're right. I just assumed that you'd look into it deeper than you did. My bad. What it does show is that you can trust the Bible. The entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation points to the person of Jesus Christ. He equated Himself with God. He proved who He was by what He did. I guess what I was trying to show is that the vast preponderance of the evidence in the Bible shows the existence of God. You're right in that it does not prove His existence like an experiment in a laboratory. That's not really its purpose. However, you're the one who brought up literary source as a means to show God's authenticity (I think the Bible far outweighs the Iliad by the way). His Creation and your conscience prove the existence of God. THAT is as obvious as the nose on your face. You CHOOSE to deny it and that is your choice. You can't have a true relationship with anyone unless they have the ability to deny it. Despite all the evidence for all of this, it is true that you must come to the Father through faith alone. Not only that, but the faith of a child. That does not mean being intellectually void and also through any lack of evidence. It means that you must put down ALL of your self-righteous, selfish pride, and arrogance before you will be allowed to step into His presence. Sadly, that is the hardest thing for us all to do.

There you go stating things not proven as "evidence".

Quote

The entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation points to the person of Jesus Christ. He equated Himself with God. He proved who He was by what He did.

Just because it says so in the Bible doesn't mean it was so. There is nothing outside of the Bible to support this. We don't know what Jesus did, we only know what the Bible says he did and that can not be verified.

Quote

However, you're the one who brought up literary source as a means to show God's authenticity (I think the Bible far outweighs the Iliad by the way). His Creation and your conscience prove the existence of God.

I didn't bring that up you did when you quoted the Bible as proof of the existence of God.

Quote

You're right in that it does not prove His existence like an experiment in a laboratory.

Then I have no reason to believe in the Christian God.

Quote

His Creation and your conscience prove the existence of God.

I disagree with this. The conscience is a product of upbringing. It differs from person to person. If it really is evidence of God then why isn't it the same from person to person? Creation is not evidence either. Just because we don't know how we got here exactly doesn't mean there is a god that created everything.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

Quote

If you look in the incidents forum right now there is a post by the ex DZO about an inquest into a plane crash a couple of years ago. "Credible eyewitnesses" couldn't even agree if it was clear sunshine or blanket cloud at the time of the crash.

If eyewitness truth can be twisted so much in just 2 years, how far can it be twisted in 2,000?

Way oversimplified strawman argument.

Methinks you don't quite understand what strawman means.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

Quote

you still haven't told me why such a loving god would create us in the first place, knowing that most of us would end up in hell. why would he give man desires and then tell him not to act on those desires? wouldn't it be easier to just not give the desires in the first place? what's the point?

These are all such very old arguments.

And yet they persevere because they have never been satisfactorily answered. Your C&P bullet points defy all logic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.

So what?

That line of argument is completely irrelevant - we can only exist to question the nature of our universe if we exist in a universe capable of sustaining life.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.

So what?

That line of argument is completely irrelevant - we can only exist to question the nature of our universe if we exist in a universe capable of sustaining life.

I believe the 7 of the initial 322 attempts (the 323rd attempt being the current universe) actually did result in variations of the BananaCat Universe format.

Unfortunately, the BCUs (BananaCatUniverse popularly known in astromonical and physics circles as BCUs) were not long lived and tended to collapse in upon itself within hours of the bang. Due to exponentially increasing "peel nip" forces between bunch-feline and anti spin bunch-feline particles.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And yours is based on the assumption that something came from nothing, blew up, and became an organized everything.

Then yours is based on even more unrealistic assumption that somewhing capable to create everything came from nothing.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

Does that make Homer's Odyssey and Illiad evidence of the Greek god's?

Let’s compare…
Manuscript Evidence

This proves nothing, as the fact the Bible exists is not challenged here.

Quote

Historical Accuracy

This is bullshit. Again, while there are numbers comparing Illiad and the Bible, there is no any explanation how did the author came to those numbers. Maybe it's the product of his imagination, or maybe he is just lying to us.

Probably the best statement describing the nonsense of such a "proof" is "The bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail". Well, Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" describes places, people and events in much more details than the Bible. And any history book greatly outstands the Bible in that as well.

Quote

Archaelogical Accuracy

Same as above. Proves nothing.

Quote

Reliability

An _excellent_ example of biblical hypocrites:

Quote

4. If the Bible is to be rejected due to minor copyist errors, then what should we do with other ancient writings?
That would be a logical conclusion. Yet, countless people have no problem accepting the accuracy of the writings of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, etc., even though the manuscript copies supporting them if far less reliable and extensive as that of the biblical documents.

This is because possible errors in those ancient writings cannot affect the life on vast majority of people, and they basically do not really care about accuracy of those writings . If somebody is able to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that Homer did not exist, it won't change the life for almost anyone.

However if somebody is able to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the Bible was faked, it would definitely affect a lot of lives. Because even the smallest mistake or misinterpretation in the God's will could lead you to Hell. And that's exactly what happens now - even Christians could not agree on a single interpretation of the Bible.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JackC 0]

In the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli when faced with a remarkably dumb paper, "That's not right, it's not even wrong".

Seriously Paj, do you even know what any of this shit means?

Quote

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum; is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing

Either Sarfati is being deliberately misleading or he really doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd suggest you look up vacuum energy renormalisation but I doubt you'd understand it, Sarfati obviously doesn't.

Quote

To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

Erm no. Raman spectroscopy uses the interaction of photons with phonons in a solid, which is obviously not a vaccum. The bands come from the allowed quantum energy changes in the material. You wouldn't get Raman bands from a vaccum. Again, Sarfati is full of shite.

Quote

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.

This is such a dumb argument it beggars belief. Obviously, Sarfati has never looked up the anthropic principle. If this universe wasn't here, we wouldn't be here to have this conversation. The only universe we can possibly know anything about, and have a discussion about, is the one we happen to be in. If banana-cat universe was the one to exist, the inhabitants of banana-cat universe would probably be having the same discussion about our universe.



Did this guy really get a PhD? I dunno about him burning his, if they hand out PhD's to morons like this, I think I'll burn mine. Honestly, this stuff is so bat shit fucking bonkers it's enough to give me an aneurysm.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

This is such a dumb argument it beggars belief. Obviously, Sarfati has never looked up the anthropic principle. If this universe wasn't here, we wouldn't be here to have this conversation. The only universe we can possibly know anything about, and have a discussion about, is the one we happen to be in. If banana-cat universe was the one to exist, the inhabitants of banana-cat universe would probably be having the same discussion about our universe.

If the BCU included the head of the Cat, then the universe would be aware of itself.

Woah.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

If the BCU included the head of the Cat, then the universe would be aware of itself.

Do aneurysms hurt? I think I might be having one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If the BCU included the head of the Cat, then the universe would be aware of itself.

except (prior to its inevitable collapse), it wouldn't care much beyond lying in sunny spots and playing with small bits of string, and occasionally coughing up stuff

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

The other thing that really bugs me about Christians is that they believe the Bible to be God's word simply because it states so in the Bible. In that case I am going to write my own book and make myself God the almighty. That way a thousand years from now people will believe me just because I wrote it down in a book and buried it in the sand.

The Bible is just a book written by men a long time ago. People back then attributed everything they didn't understand to gods. As time has moved on we learn more and more about the world we live in and attribute less and less to gods. I am not sure that the writers of the Bible really believed that God instructed them to write the Bible, but I do believe that the men who put the writings together to form what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament did so in order to create a book that would give them more control over the masses that believed in God.

Why do people believe in God or gods? I think it is out of fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of death. They can't handle not knowing the answers to everything. God or gods fill in the gaps. It explains what happens after you die. How we came to be here. Why we are here.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

Quote

If the BCU included the head of the Cat, then the universe would be aware of itself.

except (prior to its inevitable collapse), it wouldn't care much beyond lying in sunny spots and playing with small bits of string, and occasionally coughing up stuff

And being covered in icecream and chocolate sauce to make a delicious desert, or whatever it is that bananas like to do.

Do cats eat bananas? That could make things interesting.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Do cats eat bananas? That could make things interesting.

My wife had a cat that got sick. The vet gave us medicine for the cat. Supposedly it was cherry flavored.....

Yeah, I'm sure the carnivore appreciated that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

bullshit. if we don't accept him, we burn in hell for eternity.

What Bible verse says that?

John 14:6?

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

Is religion a drug? Are believers in denial and addicted??

*Disclaimer* I've read no one's replies, so sorry if I repeat anything.

Religion is a "drug" in the way many things that make us feel good are drugs. Whether it's food, skydiving, sex, shopping, alcohol, or the promise of heaven, many people become "addicted" to these vices. Take away the vice, I can definitely see where depression steps in.

It's no surprise that many ex-alcoholics become devout Christians or even skydivers (transfer of addiction rings a bell). Many people (myself included) have problems with the concept of moderation, so anything can be a problem (in my opinion, even religion) if it's taken to excess. While there are many normal, healthy people who go out every now and then for a drink or go to church Sunday mornings, others nearly live at the bar or spend all their time trying to "save" others. An intervention with either can get pretty ugly!

But then again, I could just be completely wrong!

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

bullshit. if we don't accept him, we burn in hell for eternity.

What Bible verse says that?

John 14:6?

Quote

Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
John 14:6

Nice verse but where does it say that He "needs" our "acceptance?" You see...that would give you some of the credit. That's not going to happen. God gets all the glory......for everything. He's not sitting back wondering "oh...if Nightingale will only just accept me." No...what he requires is your repentance and complete trust in Him to save you. THAT is biblical.

[Nightingale 0]

I was answering your question of where the bible says if we fail to accept him, we burn in hell. Since heaven is where god is, and hell is where he isn't, it seems like John 14:6 was a good answer.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I was answering your question of where the bible says if we fail to accept him, we burn in hell. Since heaven is where god is, and hell is where he isn't, it seems like John 14:6 was a good answer.

Where does it say He needs your acceptance? By the way, hell is a place of punishment set aside for sinners, however, it is not necessarily just where God isn't.

[maadmax 0]

I don't know about ya'all, but theories don't do a whole lot for me. Until they come up with the grand unified theory or find the Higgs bozon I don't get real excited. Theories change quicker than the current fads or politically correct view points. Do you want to know why the Bible is still around after all these years? It is real easy. IT WORKS! It gives love to the despondent, incite to the discouraged, direction to the purposeless , joy to the wretched, peace to the afflicted, self control to the hedonist, wisdom to the foolish, and most importantly PROVIDES A MEANS OF FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND SALVATION TO THE HOPELESS. Whether you understand it or not, doesn't matter. Whether you can fit it into your theories or not, doesn't matter either. IT STILL WORKS and has the power to change lives for the better. And guess what even though you are convinced the whole thing is a myth propagated by fools and misfits, GOD STILL LOVES YOU NONE THE LESS, AND WILL BE THERE FOR YOU.

[billvon 2,471]

>Do you want to know why the Bible is still around after all these years?
>It is real easy. IT WORKS! It gives love to the despondent . . .

One of the better replies in this thread, I think. If the bible works for you, then that's the best possible reason for abiding by some of its tenets. Note that you need no proofs of historical accuracy, or scientific verification of theologic interpretations, or validation of religious schisms to come to that conclusion. If it works for you, then it's a good thing.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Where does it say He needs your acceptance? By the way, hell is a place of punishment set aside for sinners.

So lets not forget, currently the world population is around 6,610,245,606, now of that 2,039 million believe in the same God as you, which is about 32% of the global population.

Therefore as we stand today a Massive 4.6 BILLION (approx) people of the current population are Hell bound....

Seems odd to me thet for a "caring" god, which you claim your god is that he would allow 3/4 of the planets population to "rot" in hell... pretty fucking sadistic if you ask me...

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[philh 0]

"I don't know about ya'all, but theories don't do a whole lot for me. Until they come up with the grand unified theory or find the Higgs bozon I don't get real excited. "

That would be a valid point if and only if creation by god had some emperical evidence for it. It has none. At best one has an argument for god but no actual evidence for god. Now if there are no other arguments then perhaps we could lead towards the god hypothesis. If there are other arguments for our orgins (and there are) then we have no reason to conclude the god hypothesis is correct. The big difference between scienitsts and theists is that when a hypothesis is suggested in science that makes sense,like the vacuum fluctuation theory of the origin of the universe,we do not automatically assume its true and base our lives around it. Theists do do that. For the god hypothesis to be taken seriously without any evidence there at least has to be no alternatives. As long as there are alternatives we have no reson to treat the god hypothesis in any prefferred way.

"Do you want to know why the Bible is still around after all these years? It is real easy. IT WORKS! It gives love to the despondent, incite to the discouraged, direction to the purposeless , joy to the wretched, peace to the afflicted, self control to the hedonist, wisdom to the foolish, and most importantly PROVIDES A MEANS OF FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND SALVATION TO THE HOPELESS. "

Lets assume we agree it works. That would have no connection whatsoever as to whether it is true. If a doctor tells his patient he is fine when in fact he has a terminal disease we might say it works because the patient walks away happier but that does not make the doctors statement true.

I wont deny that religion is very good at spreading and replciating itself. It promsies ever lasting life and people find that tempting to believe in. Of course they cannot find out if its true until after they die and then its too late. This makes religion a very succesful idea, especially amongst those not educated in critical thinking and the scientific method. But again that does not make it true. Islam "works" for over a billion people does that make it true?

Let me address the point you state is most important that it "provdies a means of forgiveness of sins and salvation". Well this really is ridiculous. First off, its forgiving you of a sin that it itself has created. In Christianity there is the belief that we somehow inherit the sins of two mythical people and that we are guilty of their actions just by being borne. It then provides the means of forgiveness. Well im sorry i dont need forgiveness of a crime I didnt commit. Even if we accept the story of Adam and Eve is true (and I see no reason to do so) why should I be responsible for their actions? Should we hold the current generation of Germans children responsible for the crimes of the Nazis? Are the curent generation of American children reposnsible for the crimes of slavery? of course not, such an idea is a riduclous concept of justice.

As to the whole concept of "it works" this is a very well known logical fallacy known as the pragmatic fallacy. Im very suprised to see someone as intelligent as Bilvon not see through this.
To demosntrate the pragmatic fallacy I will give an example. Let us suppose someone gets ill and the body can fight the illness in 4 weeks by itself. Within one week the patient goes to see a pyshcic healer and a week later they are not better; they conclude the pyshcic healer does not work. Three weeks into their disease they go and see a Christian faith healer and a week later they are better. They might conclude that it was the Chrisitian faith healer that cured them; it works, they will say. Of course it didnt really work, the body would have healed itself within 4 weeks no matter what. The patient has fallen victim of the pragmatic fallacy. This is a dangerous fallacy to fall into. Lets suppose they now get a disease that the body cannot fight off, such as Aids. They could go back to the faith healer thinking it works and what will happen? They are very likely to die as a result.

This is an importnnat lesson for humanity. When buebonic plague almost wiped out the population of Europe they didnt investigate the nature of the disease, they sought the pragmatic fallacy of prayer and it failed them dramatically. Do we want to do the same? Should we use science to try and combat the spread of Aids or should we assume its a punishment for our sins and sue prayer? Religion has caused untold wars, suffering and oppresion. Should we consider that as "working" . National socialism in Germany caused wars, suffering and oppression. National Socialism also gave hope, gave jobs, provided a scapegoat for past problems. I would not be suprised if the Germans of the 1930's and early 1940's would have said "it works for us". That would have been no reason for others not to condenm it in the strongest possible terms.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

>Do you want to know why the Bible is still around after all these years?
>It is real easy. IT WORKS! It gives love to the despondent . . .

One of the better replies in this thread, I think. If the bible works for you, then that's the best possible reason for abiding by some of its tenets. Note that you need no proofs of historical accuracy, or scientific verification of theologic interpretations, or validation of religious schisms to come to that conclusion. If it works for you, then it's a good thing.

But of course you are aware that that opens up the equally valid flip side, if the bible leads you to do bad things (as it has for many, many people) then the bible is a bad thing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?