Re: ?Does God exist


"Geoff" <gebobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YO-dnWBbxO_NDLranZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Patriot Games wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:SuednYH0wN42urranZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Patriot Games wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1LydnaKOMt0NvrvanZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Patriot Games wrote:
Do you have a problem with that? Those virtual particles can
become real at the event horizon of a singularity i.e. Hawking
radiation.
There is no such thing as virtual particles. Its simply a
description for an as yet unknown process.
Do you doubt the existence of gravity?
Nope.
It is simply the description of an as yet unknown process. Both
gravitational theory and virtual particle theory are well supported
by observations and make valid predictions.
No. Virtual particles cannot be observed.
Neither can the causes of gravity. This was the point.

The cause of gravity is mass.

Actually mass is the *source* of gravity, not the cause.

Saying that mass is the cause for gravity is like saying that paper is the
cause of books.

Exactly! :)

At a certain basic level, yes, mass distorts space ....

It should be noted here that gravity can curve both space and spacetime.

There is no evidence of any god.

What is true is that whenever evidence is given for the existance of God the
atheist will claim that its no evidence at all. Same thing can happen in
physics. Take cosmology as an example. To devise a mechanism for the
anthropic principle Paul Davies proposed the idea published in the paper

"Multiverse Cosmological Models," Paul Davies, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 727
(2004).

The abstract reads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recent advances in string theory and inflationary cosmology have led to a
surge of interest in the possible existence of an ensemble of cosmic
regions, or "universes," among the members of which key physical
parameters, such as the masses of elementary particles and the coupling
constants might assume different values. The observed values in our cosmic
region are then attributed to an observer selection effect (the so-called
anthropic principle). The assemblage of universes has been dubbed "the
multiverse." In this paper I review the multiverse concept and the
criticisms that have been advanced against it on both scientific and
philosophical grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you'd like to take a gander at it then you can download it here
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers/MultiverseCosmologicalModels%2083.pdf

This contradicts the Cosmological Principle by its very nature. However
there is no possible way that we can know which is closer to the facts. I
choose to believe that the Cosmological Principle holds. What evidence do
you think there is for the Cosmological Principle ?

Any supposed evidence for any particular god can be countered by similar
"evidence" for countless other gods.

But pleasse do enlighten me if you can. Your, one liners are pretty
boring.

Myself, I don't see the point in such arguements. I'm posting here **only**
due to the fact that there is room to discuss physics! :) I will try to
make my comments regarding physics only. Hence this post will only go to
sci.physics.

Wrong, the hypothesis is well grounded in qunatum physics. Belief in the
supernatural has no scientific basis.

Supernatural is defined as
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supernatural - 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible
observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod,
spirit, or devil2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as
to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible
agent (as a ghost or spirit)
---------------------------------------------------------------

According to this any other universe which exist outside our own is
supernatural. Yet scientists speak of them quite frequently

And at exactly what stage of the Universe does that statement describe?
What predictive power does the statement make? What does it say about
leptons, quarks, the four fundamental forces? How is it falsifiable? Tell
us please with a direct answer, does the statement have *any* scientific
worth at all and is there *any* evidence supporting it?

Now you're talking about a theory, not evidence. Theories must be
falsifiable, not evidence. Consider the muti-world model of quantum
mechanics. Apply your questions to those universes. Does it work? Are such
universes spoken of seriously in quantum mechanics?

[snipped non-physics stuff]

The linkage of a creator with the Universe is a fantasy you created. It
has no basis in logic or reality until you can provide somee evidence for
it.

Reality is what it is and it pretty much ignores requirements you (or
I or anybody) put on it. In fact the more requirements we put on it
the less likely we are to figure it out.

I honed Occam's razor and sliced it down for you.

Occam's razor is neither a law nor a theory and as such there is no
requirement to adhere to it.

because
spontaneousness didn't exist before Time existed which didn't exist
before the Universe existed.

What the...? Who said *anything* about *anything* existing before the
Universe or time? I sure didn't.

Well there is the Pre-Big Bang theory. Its the product of string theorists.

And THAT becomes infinite or silly. Take your pick.

Why is that?

Pete


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > Please provide a single piece of evidence that they don't. ... It is NOT zero. ... but what we do see points to multiple universes. ... you conclude is a science fiction story. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Please show one single scrap of scientific evidence that godexist. ... please show me scientific evidence that multiple universes exist. ... "And in quantum mechanics, "There's a possibility that almost anything ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... shown that there can be life otherwise. ... I've been told that you have to have evidence for it to be science. ... It's evidence that universes ... the Bible prophecies don't seem to be particularly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... No we cannot detect other universes. ... then that too can falsify ID. ... > It would help if you learned some science and then some biology. ... > You merely have to provide evidence that it can't explain. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: virtual particles
    ... entire universes or is this a violation of energy conservation? ... Virtual particles are only a mathematical artifact meant to represent ... Richard Feynman, "Space-Time Approach to Quantum ...
    (sci.physics)