Sunday, May 13, 2007

Response to Critic on Atheist Contradiction

You're conflating seevral concets here and disorting them to create a conundrum that does not exist.

First you assume that the "Big Bang" created something from nothing. We don't understand the Big Bang as yet becasue so little information escapes through the singularity to describe what happened before the Big Bang. So we don't know that there was nothing before there was something. It could very well have been every bit as much something as there is now.

>>>While it is true we don't know what cause the BB, it is also true scientits do not theorize that the energy in the BB was eteranlly sitting around wating to pop out, or that it was made from a previous universe. Thsoe are both theories have been discoreded. I am not a an expert, but I've read a lot of experts. Sten Odenwalk, NASA astronomer says that the energy in the BB was Created in the BB. The concensus in science is yes,it did create soemthing from nothing, or someting similar to that process.

The problem arises from the attempt to hammer Quantum physics into the words and experiences of Cartesian physics in everyday perception.

>>>> no the problem comes from atheist poropaganda, because they know something form nothing is an untenabel position.

Unfortunately, the physics of the Big Bang is not the same physics as an apple falling from a tree. Time, space, matter and energy are different in quantum terms, and the Big Bnag must be explained using the mathematics of quantum physics.

>>>all the more reason to assume the energy was created in the BB. Because conservation of energy doesnt' apply in QM sitaution.

Different is not the same.

So, claiming that physics cannot explain the origin of the all that is, therefore it must have been created by a supernatural being, is lazy cosmology

>>>Lazy is when you don't listen and don't read what the person is saying and just assume its the same old stuff because you are too lazy to think new thoughts. You need the old athist progagnada form the sec web to tell you how to respond.

this as very little to do with my post.I wasnt' even making the cosmologial argument;a nd my cos arguemnt does not turn on "wee need God to expalin it." that just comes from assuming I'm stupid because because I'm a Christian

christians stupid so I must be stupid.

The argument I'm trying to set up with the contradiction thing is my 3d God arugment "Fire in the Equasions" that argues Physical laws demand housing in some form or other, the only form that makes sense for them would be the mind of a law giver.

One may as well claim there is a unicorn in the center of the sun, since both cannot be disproven.

why would that be the case? I see a logical contradiction in the natrue of atheist/materlist propagnda/doctirne. why is that the same some fairly tale supersition but your viwes are "scientific?" Because you, like all atheists, want to pretend that sicnce is on your side, that own a monoply on science and all christains are ideiots who know nothing bout science. That answer is nothing more than foolish posturing.

In science, we deal with observation and verififcation. That which cannot be observed and verified cannot be studied by scientific methods, and therefore is not a part of our reality.

That's why this i not a science argument, it's a philosphical argument. I know it voiates the canons of science. but that doesnt' matter because sicnce a social consruct. its' not hoy its not from on high. sciece is limted to human thought. So human though is above it and can critique it.

The BIg Bang, however, has been observed and verified, so we know it occurred, even though we may not yet understand the mechanism of its occurance.

Yes we have concrete data from the BB that indicates it probably happened. But we can extrapolate from the data and form logically necessity and rule other ideas as to what cannot be the case. Fro example,it cannot be the case that phsyicals laws are merely descritpive of behavior of nature when and if physical laws are requried to bring a natural world into being. If they are not then we have to chang the naturlstic paradigm because that has been based upon the idea that physical laws expalin everytying so we don't need God. But if phsyucal laws are dexritions of something that doesn't yet exist, they can't describe anything. So there must be some regulatory princple that governs the formation of worlds and planets and spce/time prior to or in lue of a world existing. Theus there must be somethng more tahn mere description.

As to other Universes, who can say. String theory suggests there are an infinite set of universes, each of which has its own set of physical laws, most of which are antithetical to life as we know it on Earth. String theory has yet to be reconsiled with observation, yet it has provided answers to some niggly problems leading to a unified theory of matter and energy. Time, if you'll pardon the expression, will tell.

Atheist try to theorize about other worlds anduse those ideas to answer God argumenst As longas they try that, their specualtions are fair game for our speucations. You do not know if phsyical laws are descritve, or prescritive, no one does. Science cannot tell us.
11:10 AM

No comments: