| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Zhadow" |
| Date: |
06 Apr 2007 04:57:54 AM |
| Object: |
A Jabriol Thread: Evidence of a God |
Disclaimer The following is a Jabriol thread; By replying you may
subject yourself to harassment by others, i.e Carolyn Gulley and her
1001 nym's socks. You have been warned!
TO BE convinced of something, we must be presented with proof or
sound evidence. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen," wrote an inspired Bible penman.-Heb.
11:1, Authorized Version.
In the original Greek, the word for "evidence" means "a proof, that by
which a thing is proved or tested." The word was used by contemporary
non-Biblical writers to refer to proof in court cases. Certainly, this
would involve more than emotions; it would require the presentation of
facts. Who would go to court and say, "I feel" that the defendant did
this or that? No, you would have to present proof, convincing
evidence.
So we must deal with facts. Yes, what proof or evidence is available
that God must exist?
.
|
|
| User: "Witchtower Wendy" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Evidence of a God = JABRIOL WATCH: "Zhadow" & "Black_King_Bishop" are BOTH jabbers. |
06 Apr 2007 12:11:33 PM |
|
|
"Zhadow" <geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1175853474.581269.214230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<Plagiarized Watchtower material ans usual slander of apostates flushed.>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Black_King_Bishop" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 06:11:31 AM |
|
|
It is a scientific and logical axiom “Out of nothing, nothing comes.”
Mathematically, zero times 1,000 is still zero! Even a child realizes
this. If he takes his piggy bank, puts no money in it and hides it, and
if no one touches it for days, even for months, when he takes it out
what does he find? Still no money. Matter does not spontaneously appear
or just “pop” into existence.
Yet we have an abundance of material objects in the starry heavens.
Where did all of these come from? Logically, they could not have come
from nothing. So there must always have existed something from which all
these things could have come into existence. That “something” must be
eternal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 12:40:00 PM |
|
|
Black_King_Bishop wrote:
It is a scientific and logical axiom “Out of nothing, nothing comes.”
Mathematically, zero times 1,000 is still zero! Even a child realizes
this. If he takes his piggy bank, puts no money in it and hides it,
and if no one touches it for days, even for months, when he takes it
out what does he find? Still no money. Matter does not spontaneously
appear or just “pop” into existence.
Yet we have an abundance of material objects in the starry heavens.
Where did all of these come from? Logically, they could not have come
from nothing. So there must always have existed something from which
all these things could have come into existence. That “something”
must be eternal.
That is an arbitrary decision and I'm guessing you learned it from the mule.
Why can't something come from nothing (Science does indeed allow this.
Matter may indeed pop out of nothing.)
If there is something eternal what is it?
Why is is what you think it is?
The Mule at least had an idea about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:01:38 PM |
|
|
Why can't something come from nothing (Science does indeed allow this.
Matter may indeed pop out of nothing.)
If your science doesnt follow the principle of causality, your science
doesnt have any objective foot to stand on at all.
And without any objective foot to stand on, what the ***** is the
purpose of your science?
To chitchat, or to compete about who has the biggest *****?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:08:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why can't something come from nothing (Science does indeed allow
this. Matter may indeed pop out of nothing.)
If your science doesnt follow the principle of causality, your science
doesnt have any objective foot to stand on at all.
And without any objective foot to stand on, what the ***** is the
purpose of your science?
To chitchat, or to compete about who has the biggest *****?
To give the ability to develop things like tunnel diodes which are used in
computers, which allow people of extreme ignorance to shout it to the world.
For example, you seem to think that objectivity is a function of causality.
I seem to think that I don't have any way to explain that to you which you
could understand. It does cause a problem for a belief in a god however...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:12:57 PM |
|
|
In article <V0wRh.14926$Um6.8505@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't something come from nothing (Science does indeed allow
this. Matter may indeed pop out of nothing.)
If your science doesnt follow the principle of causality, your science
doesnt have any objective foot to stand on at all.
And without any objective foot to stand on, what the ***** is the
purpose of your science?
To chitchat, or to compete about who has the biggest *****?
To give the ability to develop things like tunnel diodes which are used in
computers, which allow people of extreme ignorance to shout it to the world.
For example, you seem to think that objectivity is a function of causality.
I seem to think that I don't have any way to explain that to you which you
could understand. It does cause a problem for a belief in a god however...
Zanthius is madder then the maddest loon you can think of - go to his
website www.dxun.org and see.
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:33:51 PM |
|
|
Zanthius is madder then the maddest loon you can think of - go to his
websitewww.dxun.organd see.
I have updated this page today:
http://www.dxun.org/members/transportation.php
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:05:56 PM |
|
|
In article <1175882498.767297.169220@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Why can't something come from nothing (Science does indeed allow this.
Matter may indeed pop out of nothing.)
If your science doesnt follow the principle of causality, your science
doesnt have any objective foot to stand on at all.
And without any objective foot to stand on, what the ***** is the
purpose of your science?
To chitchat, or to compete about who has the biggest *****?
School finished for the day?
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:09:42 PM |
|
|
School finished for the day?
What the ***** am I supposed to be doing on one of your infantile
schools or universities?
Spread my cancer cells into the heads of your rotten brain organs?
I can do that without going to a scool or university.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:13:26 PM |
|
|
In article <1175882982.656253.91400@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
School finished for the day?
What the ***** am I supposed to be doing on one of your infantile
schools or universities?
Spread my cancer cells into the heads of your rotten brain organs?
I can do that without going to a scool or university.
Ah so you're an UNeducated idiot. ^^^^^
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:16:35 PM |
|
|
Ah so you're an UNeducated idiot. ^^^^^
Of course I am not educated by complete idiots like you.
What the ***** am I supposed to learn from little pieces of filth like
you anyhow?
How to more efficiently eradicate your rotten brain cells?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
06 Apr 2007 01:19:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1175883395.684756.166790@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Ah so you're an UNeducated idiot. ^^^^^
Of course I am not educated by complete idiots like you.
I don't think anyone could educate you.
What the ***** am I supposed to learn from little pieces of filth like
you anyhow?
Ahhhhhhh
How to more efficiently eradicate your rotten brain cells?
You are not a special little snowflake.
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
07 Apr 2007 07:16:24 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:01:38 -0700, zanthius.dxun wrote:
Why can't something come from nothing (Science does indeed allow this.
Matter may indeed pop out of nothing.)
If your science doesnt follow the principle of causality, your science
doesnt have any objective foot to stand on at all.
What's your simplistic understanding of "causality" have to do with
science?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
07 Apr 2007 09:04:13 AM |
|
|
What's your simplistic understanding of "causality" have to do with
science?
Simplistic? What is the more complicated understanding of causality?
That effect can have no cause?
Or that the entire universe is a chaos, without any objective laws at
all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
07 Apr 2007 09:50:03 AM |
|
|
On 7 Apr 2007 07:04:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com wrote in
<1175954653.757833.274590@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
What's your simplistic understanding of "causality" have to do with
science?
Simplistic? What is the more complicated understanding of causality?
That effect can have no cause?
When it comes to quantum mechanics, there are effects that have no cause
as we understand cause.
Or that the entire universe is a chaos, without any objective laws at
all?
No. The problem is the level of abstraction in analysis. We know that a
specific isotope will have a half-life of X years, but we have no way of
identifying which particular atom will decay at any given time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
07 Apr 2007 10:13:47 AM |
|
|
No. The problem is the level of abstraction in analysis. We know that a
specific isotope will have a half-life of X years, but we have no way of
identifying which particular atom will decay at any given time.
There is a limit to how small you can construct the silicon processors
in an efficient way with your current method of focusing light rays,
as well.
That is why nanotechnology is going to be constructed in a different
way. Possibly by building a self-replicating machine of individual
atoms.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
07 Apr 2007 09:55:05 AM |
|
|
When it comes to quantum mechanics, there are effects that have no cause
as we understand cause.
Even if you dont understand the cause, it doesnt imply in any way,
that there is no cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 07:33:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:55:05 -0700, zanthius.dxun wrote:
When it comes to quantum mechanics, there are effects that have no cause
as we understand cause.
Even if you dont understand the cause, it doesnt imply in any way, that
there is no cause.
Getting dangerously close to a "gaps" argument there...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 07:31:48 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:04:13 -0700, zanthius.dxun wrote:
What's your simplistic understanding of "causality" have to do with
science?
Simplistic? What is the more complicated understanding of causality? That
effect can have no cause?
When you get to the quantum level of things, "cause" doesn't work the way
you seem to think. Try taking a look at radioactive decay sometime, it's a
"just happens" kind of thing. A lot of things at the quantum level violate
the naive understanding of causality with impunity. Try explaining the
two-slit experiment.
I dare you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 09:39:12 AM |
|
|
it's a "just happens" kind of thing.
A few hundred years ago, everything seemed to "just happen" to your
species.
Mainly because they didnt have scientifically advanced enough
equipment to understand the causes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 11:19:00 AM |
|
|
<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote:
it's a "just happens" kind of thing.
A few hundred years ago, everything seemed to "just happen" to your
species.
Mainly because they didnt have scientifically advanced enough
equipment to understand the causes.
What species do you belong to, Dr. Druggie?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 12:53:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1176043152.697608.264700@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
it's a "just happens" kind of thing.
A few hundred years ago, everything seemed to "just happen" to your
species.
Mainly because they didnt have scientifically advanced enough
equipment to understand the causes.
Its your species too - you aren't special, no matter how deluded you
are...
--
Got mail? I did ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 12:01:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:39:12 -0700, zanthius.dxun wrote:
it's a "just happens" kind of thing.
A few hundred years ago, everything seemed to "just happen" to your
species.
Just because _you're_ too willfully ignorant to understand quantum
mechanics doesn't mean _everyone_ is. There's a hell of a lot of math
behind that "just happens" and it is indeed pretty well understood.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 12:10:11 PM |
|
|
Just because _you're_ too willfully ignorant to understand quantum
mechanics doesn't mean _everyone_ is. There's a hell of a lot of math
behind that "just happens" and it is indeed pretty well understood.
It is mathematically impossible for something to just happen.
There is no such thing as true random generated by mathematics.
That is why you only have artificially generated random by
mathematical formulas in the computers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 12:55:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1176052211.340366.37980@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Just because _you're_ too willfully ignorant to understand quantum
mechanics doesn't mean _everyone_ is. There's a hell of a lot of math
behind that "just happens" and it is indeed pretty well understood.
It is mathematically impossible for something to just happen.
There is no such thing as true random generated by mathematics.
That is why you only have artificially generated random by
mathematical formulas in the computers.
Nonsense from the nonsense peddlar.
--
Got mail? I did ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 12:56:50 PM |
|
|
Nonsense from the nonsense peddlar.
And you are telling me that my science is pseudo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-random_number_generator
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 02:03:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1176055010.776697.190210@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Nonsense from the nonsense peddlar.
And you are telling me that my science is pseudo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-random_number_generator
You have a very skewed view of science.
--
Got mail? I did ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 01:03:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:10:11 -0700, zanthius.dxun wrote:
Just because _you're_ too willfully ignorant to understand quantum
mechanics doesn't mean _everyone_ is. There's a hell of a lot of math
behind that "just happens" and it is indeed pretty well understood.
It is mathematically impossible for something to just happen.
*snort*
Shall I reuse the above assertion? Just because _you're_ too willfully
ignorant to understand mathematics doesn't mean _everyone_ is. There's a
hell of a lot of knowledge that you're pretending does not exist.
There is no such thing as true random generated by mathematics.
Yeah, and 1+1=11.
That is why you only have artificially generated random by mathematical
formulas in the computers.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In this case, _very_ little.
Microscopic.
I also love how you had to reply not once, not twice, but _three_
separate times to my post. Two of which are just repeated assertions
that only illustrate your willful ignorance and one of which is an ad
hominem insult meant to distract me from the fact that you have
absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Pseudorandom number generators in computing have no relationship
whatsoever to the true randomness in quantum mechanics, which indeed
arises from the underlying mathematics.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 01:46:29 PM |
|
|
Pseudorandom number generators in computing have no relationship
whatsoever to the true randomness in quantum mechanics, which indeed
arises from the underlying mathematics.
What is the mathematical formula for generating true random in quantum
mechanics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Jabriol Thread: Sound Scientific Logic |
08 Apr 2007 02:21:47 PM |
|
|
Pseudorandom number generators in computing have no relationship
whatsoever to the true randomness in quantum mechanics, which indeed
arises from the underlying mathematics.
What is the mathematical formula for generating true random in quantum
mechanics?
During a measurement, the change of the wavefunction into another one
is not deterministic, but rather unpredictable, i.e., random. It
should be noted, however, that in quantum mechanics, "random" has come
to mean "random for all practical purposes," and not "absolutely
random."
"true random" == "absolutely random"
"empirically unpredictable" != "true random"
I am talking about true random, not empirically unpredictable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
