CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

[mikempb 0]

I haven't failed at all. You have failed to comprehend the obvious

[mikempb 0]

The hardest thing to ask of a skeptic is to be skeptical about skepticism Try doubting doubt once in a while so at least your being consistent thats not a jab at anyone but I believe a reasonable request.

[beowulf 1]

That's one of the most nonsensical statements I have read on this forum in a long time.

[billvon 2,400]

>Hawkings radiation is so far a debated theory. Since no one can get anywhere near
>a black hole the point here is moot. Hawkings radiation topic occurred in earlier
>posts.

=====================
Technology Review
September 2010

First Observation of Hawking Radiation

Hawking predicted it in 1974. Now physicists say they've seen it for the first time

kfc 09/27/2010

For some time now, astronomers have been scanning the heavens looking for signs of Hawking radiation. So far, they've come up with zilch.

Today, it looks as if they've been beaten to the punch by a group of physicists who say they've created Hawking radiation in their lab. These guys reckon they can produce Hawking radiation in a repeatable unambiguous way, finally confirming Hawking's prediction. Here's how they did it.

Physicists have long realised that on the smallest scale, space is filled with a bubbling melee of particles leaping in and out of existence. These particles form as particle-antiparticle pairs and rapidly annihilate, returning their energy to the vacuum.

Hawking's prediction came from thinking about what might happen to particle pairs that form at the edge of a black hole. He realised that if one of the pair were to cross the event horizon, it could never return. But its partner on the other side would be free to go.

To an observer it would look as if the black hole were producing a constant stream of quantum particles, which became known as Hawking radiation.

Since then, other physicists have pointed out that black holes aren't the only place where event horizons can form. Any medium in which waves travel can support an event horizon and in theory, it should be possible to see Hawking radiation in these media too.

Today, Franco Belgiorno at the University of Milan and a few buddies say they've produced Hawking radiation by firing an intense laser pulse through a so-called nonlinear material, that is one in which the light itself changes the refractive index of the medium.

As the pulse moves through the material, so too does the change in refractive index, creating a kind of bow wave in which the refractive index is much higher than the surrounding material.

This increase in refractive index causes any light heading into it to slow down. "By choosing appropriate conditions, it is possible to bring the light waves to a standstill," say Belgiono and co. This creates a horizon beyond which light cannot penetrate, what physicists call a white hole event horizon, the inverse of a black hole.

White holes aren't so different to black holes (in fact Hawking argues that they are formally equivalent). And it's not hard to imagine what happens to particle pairs that form at this type of horizon. If one of the pair crosses the horizon, it can make no headway and so becomes trapped. The other is free to go. So the horizon ought to look as if it is generating quantum particles.

It is this radiation that Belgiorno and co say they've seen by watching from the side as a high power infrared laser pulse ploughs through a lump of fused silica. Their pulse has frequency of 1055nm but the light they see emitted at right angles has a wavelength of around 850nm.
==========================

[mikempb 0]

Unfortunately atheist rule out the possibility of intelligent design for lack of proof and or the un believeability of miracles they refuse to provide proof for their own beliefs. Rather criticize other theists to defend their point of view. There is no substance in that when I see them start getting angry at me ( I love it by the way!) I know I'm hitting a nerve. That nerve is your conscience, listen to it...

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The hardest thing to ask of a skeptic is to be skeptical about skepticism Try doubting doubt once in a while so at least your being consistent thats not a jab at anyone but I believe a reasonable request.

The very term "skeptic", in the way it used used by the faithful to label atheists, is fraught with bias. I urge you to substitute a truly neutral term (and not quibble about the semantics of the concept "skepticism").

To illustrate: I assume you do not, at this stage of your adult life, believe in the existence of an actual, corporeal Santa Claus. You know, fat guy, white beard, red suit, reindeer, North Pole, down-the-chimney, toys to every kid in 1 night, the whole smash. You view his physical existence as a myth, a fable, whatever; but in any event, not an actual being or entity in whom you believe as a mater of personal faith. Would adult society generally label you a "skeptic" for your lack of belief in his existence? Of course not. And yet, if the prevailing religion in society were, say, Santa Clausism, with a little sleigh being the religious symbol people commonly wore around their necks (the Catholic version would have a reindeer, too), you'd be called a "skeptic".

Atheists are not skeptics because, as discussed in the other parallel thread, non-believers do not bear the burden (not moral burden, but intellectual burden) of proof to prove the non-existence of the supernatural; rather, the intellectual burden of proof rests solely with the faithful to prove the supernatural.

Added: Atheism is not a belief; it is simply a lack of belief. There is no intellectual burden to prove a lack of belief. So I have no more burden to prove that God does not exist as I do to prove Santa Claus does not exist. So every time you talk about atheists' "beliefs", and their not proving the non-existence of a deity, you're turning all intellectually-honest logic on its head.

[mikempb 0]

That would be completely true except I can prove with 100% certainty that there is no Santa ( don't tell my kids) but for you there is lack of proof of God. You can't prove God doesnt exist so you shouldn't rule it out it is ( for an atheist ) an option that should be looked at from time to time to see if evidence has been brought to your attention that may change your mind.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

>Hawkings radiation is so far a debated theory. Since no one can get anywhere near
>a black hole the point here is moot. Hawkings radiation topic occurred in earlier
>posts.

=====================
Technology Review
September 2010

First Observation of Hawking Radiation

Hawking predicted it in 1974. Now physicists say they've seen it for the first time

kfc 09/27/2010

For some time now, astronomers have been scanning the heavens looking for signs of Hawking radiation. So far, they've come up with zilch.

Today, it looks as if they've been beaten to the punch by a group of physicists who say they've created Hawking radiation in their lab. These guys reckon they can produce Hawking radiation in a repeatable unambiguous way, finally confirming Hawking's prediction. Here's how they did it.

Physicists have long realised that on the smallest scale, space is filled with a bubbling melee of particles leaping in and out of existence. These particles form as particle-antiparticle pairs and rapidly annihilate, returning their energy to the vacuum.

Hawking's prediction came from thinking about what might happen to particle pairs that form at the edge of a black hole. He realised that if one of the pair were to cross the event horizon, it could never return. But its partner on the other side would be free to go.

To an observer it would look as if the black hole were producing a constant stream of quantum particles, which became known as Hawking radiation.

Since then, other physicists have pointed out that black holes aren't the only place where event horizons can form. Any medium in which waves travel can support an event horizon and in theory, it should be possible to see Hawking radiation in these media too.

Today, Franco Belgiorno at the University of Milan and a few buddies say they've produced Hawking radiation by firing an intense laser pulse through a so-called nonlinear material, that is one in which the light itself changes the refractive index of the medium.

As the pulse moves through the material, so too does the change in refractive index, creating a kind of bow wave in which the refractive index is much higher than the surrounding material.

This increase in refractive index causes any light heading into it to slow down. "By choosing appropriate conditions, it is possible to bring the light waves to a standstill," say Belgiono and co. This creates a horizon beyond which light cannot penetrate, what physicists call a white hole event horizon, the inverse of a black hole.

White holes aren't so different to black holes (in fact Hawking argues that they are formally equivalent). And it's not hard to imagine what happens to particle pairs that form at this type of horizon. If one of the pair crosses the horizon, it can make no headway and so becomes trapped. The other is free to go. So the horizon ought to look as if it is generating quantum particles.

It is this radiation that Belgiorno and co say they've seen by watching from the side as a high power infrared laser pulse ploughs through a lump of fused silica. Their pulse has frequency of 1055nm but the light they see emitted at right angles has a wavelength of around 850nm.
==========================

09/27/2010 Has it been proven yet? I understand that there will be or recently has been a probe launch of some type to try to gather info about blackholes.
Could the launch be about the Italians experiment?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You can't prove God doesnt exist so you shouldn't rule it out

The fact that you still say that proves that either (a) you've been so firmly indoctrinated into that talking point that you simply cannot abandon it, or (b) you have no proper understanding of the concept of logical burdens of proof. So that pretty much halts the discussion in its tracks.

[billvon 2,400]

>That would be completely true except I can prove with 100% certainty that there is no Santa

How?

[mikempb 0]

Because I put the presents under the tree. If Santa just decides not to come to our house then it goes against his commandment thou shall give toys to good boys and girls. If u ask how I know my kids are good I have first hand eyewitness testimony to it

[Andy9o8 0]

That's your house.

I caught Mommy kissin' Santa Claus. Prove me wrong.

[billvon 2,400]

>Because I put the presents under the tree.

Right. But how can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist? Do you check with every other parent on the planet to verify that no one else gives them gifts?

Objectively speaking there's a lot more evidence for Santa Claus than there is for any given representation of God.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

>Because I put the presents under the tree.

Right. But how can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist? Do you check with every other parent on the planet to verify that no one else gives them gifts?

Objectively speaking there's a lot more evidence for Santa Claus than there is for any given representation of God.

God, string theories, unicorns, quantum Stevie Hawkings, renegade Italians and Santa Claus........
Jeeze. This thread is turning to do-do. It was a great thread. Congratz to the OP.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

If u ask how I know my kids are good I have first hand eyewitness testimony to it

Maybe your kids are evil geniuses that pretend to be nice, and you won't know until they unleash their doomsday device

Maybe you've got the wrong interpretation of the myth truth

Maybe the universe is Santa (pansantaism)

Nice anecdote, but it doesn't prove a thing

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I haven't failed at all. You have failed to comprehend the obvious

Another failure there - I comprehend that you don't have much grasp of the concepts you speak of.

You started this thread entitled CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS by stating that apologetics involves proving god beyond reasonable doubt, and that all the evidence points towards god. Well, we're 2/3rds of the way through your topics and you've so far not made an impression on anyone, or satisfactorily answered the most basics questions about your assertions. Read what you've posted for god's sake, you want us to accept that universal morality exists because a) you say so and b) we don't like being tortured.

Seriously?

(Oh, and you also said that to know what's bad we have to know what's good - whatever that means. I have a positive REACTION to being tickled and hearing dirty jokes. Are tickling and dirty joke telling universal, absolute moral goods?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Unfortunately atheist rule out the possibility of intelligent design for lack of proof and or the un believeability of miracles they refuse to provide proof for their own beliefs.

That's your design argument? There's no proof for it and miracles are unbelievable? Now, I'm sure it's my fault for not comprehending but I really don't see how that helps your cause.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

I haven't failed at all. You have failed to comprehend the obvious

The only truly obvious thing to come out of this thread is fact that your Bullshit Detector is completely fucked.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[mikempb 0]

I should start another thread I think, about why atheists are so angry....... Hmmmm maybe they need some good 'ol fashioned forgiveness. I have to thank you though, I started this thread for some fun interesting conversation and to the angry ones thanks for the laughs!!!

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I should start another thread I think, about why atheists are so angry..

I see. Person who disagrees with you = angry atheist!!1!

So far this thread, and especially the replies to you, has been remarkably civil. I understand you're trying to save face in your retreat from this thread but I think if I challenged you to point out where people have acted angrily towards you then you'd be just as stuck as you were with your debate topics.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

references to the bible that will get us off tract

***OK, I just had to highlight this. I'm not usually one to point out typos, but this one is too funny

Sorry Mike...

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mikempb 0]

You must have been so angry while you were hitting exclamation marks your third one was 1 LOL

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

I'm not here to find nonbelievers. If somebody doesn't believe, there is nothing I can say short of scripture that will make them believe. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, not by what I have to say about it.

This is Dogmatics, not apologetics.

I feel like I am beating my head against the wall.

Welcome to my nightmare...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Nevermind, forget it...that's not what I meant.

Oh, ok.

So when you said 'without the bible, anything goes' you actually meant 'without the bible, not everything goes'.

No, you're just confused...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[gher 0]

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi*





*I don't care if it's not a true quote--the idea still stands....