Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[sealybobo]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.

those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:

how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.

 

[sealybobo]

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"

Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.

No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?

"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God? 'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....

also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world? scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2, Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

You are preseming that there was an "original cause", or that one was necessary. And your support for this claim is...?

isn't that a valid scientific question?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.

those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:

how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.

are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?

 

[ding]

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.

No. Not an endless cycle. So says the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"

Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.

No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?

"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God? 'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....

also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world? scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2, Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

A couple quotes from Andrew Flew (1923-2010).....one of the most famous atheists in the past half century:


I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.

Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.

I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.

 

[ding]

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?

No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.

Nope. That's not what we observe at all.

 

[ding]

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

.

We have observed that all points are moving away from us.

as explained before, all matter is traveling with a trajectory of a finite angle and will all re-converge at the same time at their origin to replicate a new moment of Singularity. BB is cyclical.

And it might not be the same starting point the next time. Maybe another black hole will start off the next big bang. I know there seems to be order but that isn't always the case. When the universe was young it was chaos like a pinball machine when it drops a bonus 10 balls all at once and you try to keep as many of those 10 balls in play and while they are they are all over the place sometimes even banging against each other and causing a chain reaction.

If this chain reaction didn't happen the dinosaurs may never have gone extinct. The trees might not have been all knocked down either. So basically we would have stayed monkey's in the trees. Just like a dolphin's brain is really evolved but they can't build a ship to go to the moon, we wouldn't be driving in cars either if the dinosaurs were still around. Maybe. Who knows. LOL

Nope. Our best guess right now is nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. All starting in the space of an atom. Mind blowing stuff. The atoms in your body have existed for over 14 billion years in one form or another.

 

[ding]

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

.

In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.


the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.

Yes we are. The Bible called this before science did. DNA too.

 

[sealybobo]

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"

Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.

No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?

"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God? 'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....

also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world? scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2, Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

A couple quotes from Andrew Flew (1923-2010).....one of the most famous atheists in the past half century:


I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.

Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.

I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.

Really? I never heard of him. He's not a very good atheist.

And I'm ok with his god. He's not telling me he believes in the god that visited and has a hell waiting for people who don't believe. Did he convert to Christianity? So his "god" is harmless. I'm ok with that.

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticized the idea of life after death, the free will defense to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.[6] However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God.

Sounds like one of those people who start believing the closer they get to death because they are afraid.
Flew's intellect had declined, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[8] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views, and he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.

I'm reading up on him and sorry but I think he was old and at that time bat shit crazy. Sorry.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

 

[sealybobo]

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

.

In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.


the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.

Yes we are. The Bible called this before science did. DNA too.

Show me.

Man—in the form of Adam—was indeed made from the “dust” of the ground. However, the Earth and its component materials were created before the stars, not from the stars (Gen. 1:16).

Read more at: Are humans made of stardust? • ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[sealybobo]

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

.

We have observed that all points are moving away from us.

as explained before, all matter is traveling with a trajectory of a finite angle and will all re-converge at the same time at their origin to replicate a new moment of Singularity. BB is cyclical.

And it might not be the same starting point the next time. Maybe another black hole will start off the next big bang. I know there seems to be order but that isn't always the case. When the universe was young it was chaos like a pinball machine when it drops a bonus 10 balls all at once and you try to keep as many of those 10 balls in play and while they are they are all over the place sometimes even banging against each other and causing a chain reaction.

If this chain reaction didn't happen the dinosaurs may never have gone extinct. The trees might not have been all knocked down either. So basically we would have stayed monkey's in the trees. Just like a dolphin's brain is really evolved but they can't build a ship to go to the moon, we wouldn't be driving in cars either if the dinosaurs were still around. Maybe. Who knows. LOL

Nope. Our best guess right now is nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. All starting in the space of an atom. Mind blowing stuff. The atoms in your body have existed for over 14 billion years in one form or another.

And my soul will live for all eternity in paradise. I'm a human now but soon I will be a god myself.

 

[sealybobo]

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

.

In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.


the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.

Yes we are. The Bible called this before science did. DNA too.

Greeks had figured out atoms 500 years before Jesus.

 

[sealybobo]

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?

No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.

What do you say to this?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

How can one explain this sophisticated messaging, coding, residing in our cells?

On June 26, 2000, President Clinton congratulated those who completed the human genome sequencing. President Clinton said, "Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift."7 Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, followed Clinton to the podium stating, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."8

When looking at the DNA structure within the human body, we cannot escape the presence of intelligent (incredibly intelligent) design.

According to the Bible (which is itself incredibly complex) God is not only the Author of our existence, but he is the Relationship that makes our existence meaningful. All the intangibles in life that we crave...enough strength for any situation, joy, wisdom, and knowing we are loved...God alone gives these to us as we listen to him and trust him. He is our greatest, reliable guide in life. Just as he has engineered DNA to instruct the cell, he offers to instruct us to make our lives function well, for his glory and for our sake, because he loves us.

Why is DNA important? It's one more proof for God. He designed our bodies. He can also be trusted to design your life. Have you ever begun a relationship with God? This explains how you can: Knowing God Personally.

For further evidence that seeks to answer the question, "Is God real?" please see Is There a God?

 

[Czernobog]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)

"I don't know" is not the same as "nothing". Besides, nothing is certainly more sane than an imaginary invisible cosmic tinkerer.

 

[Czernobog]

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"

Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.

No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?

"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God? 'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....

also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world? scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...

You get that the universe isn't orderly, right?

 

[Czernobog]

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

You are preseming that there was an "original cause", or that one was necessary. And your support for this claim is...?

isn't that a valid scientific question?

No, because it infers a violation of the First law of Thermodynamics. It implies that there can be an effect without a cause. "God created the universe," Okay. From whence came God. In order for this "God" to have existed, something must have created it. However, that would negate it being God; rather it is just another effect of some other cause.

 

[Czernobog]

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.

those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:

how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.

are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?

Sure. However, ideas, and thoughts are personal, and subjective. One can hardly use them as objective evidence of divinity, now can one.

 

[Czernobog]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.

No. Not an endless cycle. So says the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

There you go trying to understand quantum mechanics with your high school physics again. Come on back when you develop the ability to understand how it is possible to convert matter into energy without losing mass.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?

No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.

Nope. That's not what we observe at all.

That's not what you observe with your limited understanding of physics. That's your problem, not the problem of science.