More religious bone-headedness

[Craftsman]

Your mental abilities have not acutally gotton the meaning behind the story. Lets give you one more chance. And no the problem are not solveble. And 5000 years? Thats means in the great age of the egyptians. So once again you are mistaken.

[taks]

uh, hate to tell you but YES, fire does have weight and it can be calculated and/or measured and YES, wind is also a measurable quantity. bad answer dude.

 

be careful before you criticize somebody's "mental abilities" around here. you really don't know what you're getting into. the old testament, btw, is based on events that actually happened almost 7000 years ago. the NEW testament is only since the advent of christ a bit over 2000 years ago.

 

anyway, the point of the story is that it is impossible to comprehend what god is, yet i CAN calculate the weight of fire and measure wind (velocity, CFM through a given area...) and the concept of time is something i'm no stranger to, therefore, if i can comprehend these concepts, why not the concept of said god? his excuse, not mine...

 

taks

[Craftsman]

Its not 7000 years. The bible starts pretty much with moses. Thats after he left egypt. 2000 BC. And no fire cannot be weighted. If it can prove it to me. Also you cant measure the mass of th wind. Hey, its not cool to say you know something when you dont.

[Drakron]

No, the old testement is of older times that Moses with pretty much markes the end of the old testement, true that the date 1750 BC is used about Abram but there is no agreement over that date.

 

The bible is composed of the old testement (from "Genesis" to "Malaquias") and the new testment (from "Mateus" to "Apocalipse")

 

We all realized you are ignorant in a lot of fields but you are even ignorant on the bible.

[breakdancing negro]

Hey, its not cool to say you know something when you dont.

The irony.

 

And no fire cannot be weighted. If it can prove it to me. Also you cant measure the mass of th wind.

 

mass. (m) Compare with weight. Mass is a measure of the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. It's harder to roll a tractor trailer than a roller skate; the tractor trailer has a far greater mass.

 

matter. Matter is anything that has mass. Air, water, coffee,fire, human beings, and stars are matter. Light, X-rays, photons, gravitons, information, and love aren't matter.

 

Linky - http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/1...lossary/m.shtml

 

For the wind bit, you might want to take a look at the following MIT experiment lab report

 

Linky - http://www-paoc.mit.edu/12307/mass%20wind/...es/project1.pdf

Mass and wind - geostrophic/ageostrophic flow

 

The purpose of this project is to study, using meteorological observations and laboratory

experiments, the relation between the wind field and the mass field in a rotating

system. In part I we explore the relationship in laboratory experiments; in part II

atmospheric observations of intense cyclones and hurricanes are used.

 

Were I motivated enough, I would reach 4 feet over and pull out my text for my college chemsitry class, but the incentive is lacking. If I recall, one measures the mass of things like "fire" in molarity or some s*** like that. I'll research it more if you can pull some facutally-based hat trick that says something to the contrary of the GCO website definition.

[Atreides]

Heh, I don't know if Uriel considered help from the internet a few thousand years ago

 

I wonder what sort of questions he's ask now that we're incapable of answering, given our current understanding.

[Craftsman]

Yet you can not give me the MASS of wind. All you have given me is sciencetific definitons that answer nothing.

[Aegeri]

Yet you can not give me the MASS of wind. All you have given me is sciencetific definitons that answer nothing.

I think you got owned Craftsman. This is about the time you should give up I think.

[Craftsman]

Give up to what? Ok you seem not able to grasp the point of the bible quote that I resented to you. Here it is in a nutshell.

 

1) That humans cannot possibly understand the ways that God works and why and I quote "And how can one who is already worn out by the corrupt world understand incorruption?""

 

2) And that humans can only understand what

[Aegeri]

Give up to what?

The fact that all through this thread you've had trucks driven through all your logic?

 

1) That humans cannot possibly understand the ways that God

 

Not really, depends on if he exists or not in the first place. As you cannot prove this, it is irrelevant to the discussion. For example, you presented some babble as evidence that we cannot measure the mass of fire, this is incorrect and any chemistry or physics textbook answers this question very well. As such, your logic has been proven to be flawed, and therefore has been proved to be factually incorrect.

 

2) And that humans can only understand what

[Craftsman]

Ahhhh your so classic.

 

Honestly your short sightedness is embarrassing to anyone who reads it. Obviously you forget the context the passage is written. At that time it was impossible to do such things. Anyway you can’t measure the direct mass if fire or wind. End of story.

 

Also you say the bible is false.

 

That’s a good one. Tell it to my mates next time.

 

If its false prove it. (Its one of those questions when we already know the answer)

[Drakron]

No, s/he said your statements about fire and wind were false.

 

The bible cannot (and sould not) be used as a exact historical description or a scientific book that is what you being doing.

 

Of course you already show your ignorance about the Bible ...

[breakdancing negro]

Anyway you can

[taks]

And no fire cannot be weighted. If it can prove it to me. Also you cant measure the mass of th wind. Hey, its not cool to say you know something when you dont.

i call bulls***t dude...

 

are you really THAT dense?

 

YES, fire has mass. fire is composed of heated carbon and other elements, therefore it has mass. wind is composed of AIR einstein, ergo, IT HAS MASS. air consists mostly of oxygen and nitrogen with some carbon dioxide and a few other elements thrown in. each of these is either a.) an element or b.) a molecule and, as we all SHOULD know, elements and molecules have mass. i cannot help it if you are incapable of understanding simple physics.

 

taks

[taks]

Yet you can not give me the MASS of wind. All you have given me is sciencetific definitons that answer nothing.

uh, yes you can... figure out the rate of flow of the wind and then calculate the number of particles (various elements/molecules i described above) passing through a given area and you have the "density" (akin to current density in a transmission line) of the air flow. you can also easily measure the weight of air in any given volume at a certain altitude (hint: use avogadro's number).

 

did you not take any science classes as a child in school? this is basic stuff man... grade school. i bet you don't think it's possible to send electromagnetic waves through the air to communicate over a cell phone... god connects us! :roll:

 

taks

[Ronald]

1) That humans cannot possibly understand the ways that God works and why and I quote "And how can one who is already worn out by the corrupt world understand incorruption?""

Of course, Uriel was the leader of the Nephilim, who in large part corrupted mankind. Just the facts, ma'am, not the basis of the basis of the basis of Cthulhu mythos.

 

 

2) And that humans can only understand what

[taks]

baaaaaaa...

taks

[Craftsman]

I have problem, with people taking my arguments apart as they try to get cheap points by taking parts out of there original context. But back to the arguement.

 

The Anthropic Principle points out that there are over one hundred variables to this universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. This Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible. Could this have happened by chance? Consider the following analogy.

If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think, naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters."

But if you went down the street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk, and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think somebody did this deliberately." The Universe as we know it, is that carefully balanced. This theory is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle. The only other possibility other than that this Universe was created, is that there are so MANY universes, that the equivalent of one hundred quarters falling out of someone's pocket and ALL of them ending up balanced on their edges occurred, completely by random chance. This theory is known as the, "Weak Anthropic Principle. So if you are a rational thinker here are your only two choices. Believe this Universe was created, or that there are multitudes of universes.

Now here is what I call the Modified Weak Anthropic Principle. If there are that many universes, then the chances of a Being like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could, of course, call such a Being something else other than "God." But if it quacks like a Cosmic Duck and it waddles like a Cosmic Duck and it builds little universe nests and lays eggs that turn into baby Cosmic Ducklings, why not it call it a Cosmic Duck? Paul did say we grow into Christ! (Ephesians 4:15).

 

http://www.proofgodexists.org/anthropic_principle.htm

 

Ahhh. Its so good to have people that think alike. After reading this theroy i found it quite convincing. Anyone...

[Aegeri]

At that time it was impossible to do such things.

Aha, so we have changed our tune now haven't we?

 

You're a delightful mass of giggling contradictions.

 

Anyway you can

[chevan]

I have problem, with people taking my arguments apart as they try to get cheap points by taking parts out of there original context. But back to the arguement.

What do you mean by taking arguments apart? If you mean when we split up the different parts we're replying to, that's the only efficient way to do it. It's harder to write a single essay at the bottom. And I don't think we're taking stuff out of context. Usually, the piece itself is broken up into parts, and we (at least I) reply to the specific parts. We can also remember what was written before, so I think we'd recognize if something was out of context.

 

Also, what do you mean by "your" arguments? Most of the stuff you've posted is copied/pasted from another site? Did you write them? Comparing your posts and the written pieces, I'd say no, but speak up if I'm wrong.

 

The Anthropic Principle points out that there are over one hundred variables to this universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. This Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible. Could this have happened by chance? Consider the following analogy.

 

There's no possible answer for this. An atheist would probably say, "Yes, the universe happened by chance." Someone more religiously minded would probably say, "No, the universe was not a chance happening." Notice also something here.

 

that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different

Of course life as we know it is going to be different if those variables are different. But, how do we know we're the only possible form of life? Again, this relates to above. An atheist would probably say, "There's other possible forms of life," and a religious person might say either that or, "We are the only possible form of life." Their response depends on their beliefs.

 

If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think, naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters."

But if you went down the street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk, and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think somebody did this deliberately." The Universe as we know it, is that  carefully balanced. This theory is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle. The only other possibility other than that this Universe was created, is that there are so MANY universes, that the equivalent of one hundred quarters falling out of someone's pocket and ALL of them ending up balanced on their edges occurred, completely by random chance. This theory is known as the, "Weak Anthropic Principle. So if you are a rational thinker here are your only two choices. Believe this Universe was created, or that there are multitudes of universes.

 

I would just like to ask one thing. At this time, I have no problem with this passage. But, I would like to know what the universe as we know it is being compared to. How exactly do we know it is all nice and balanced?

[Craftsman]

We difine nice and balanaced by the event which lead to our existence which continues today.

 

Also I have noticed that most of you contiune to make a comment similar comments such as the following.

 

Yawn. Usual misconceptions, usual blatant abuse of 'logic' and assuming that evolution is always random (this isn't actually the case) bla bla.

 

 

First blatant use of logic? So now your saying that logic is crap when it does suit you? And i dont think that evolution is random, so what are you smoking? Also just becasue you reply to a statment i make does not always mean that you have won the argument. If you wanna win this arugment make clear statments, and no short, stupid comments that only show how anable you are to directly challenge the question. Like with the theory i presented some of you instead of intellignetly anayasing you critisize it but with no base or substance.

 

Step One: Existence Proof of Higher Worlds

 

Let us suppose that human reason forms a closed system. By 'human reason' I mean the set of synthetic a priori principles that delineate the categories of human thought, together with the principles of classical logic. Godel's incompleteness proof showed that any closed system is incomplete in the sense that there are true sentences that are unprovable in the system. These sentences are sentences about the system itself, such as "S is consistent", where 'S' refers to some closed system. These sentences can only be proved by moving up a type into a higher order "metasystem". Now consider the sentence "S is consistent" as applied to human reason. It follows from Godel's incompleteness proof that this sentence is unprovable in the system of human reason.

 

Nevertheless, we do have inductive, empirical, and pragmatic grounds for believing that human reason is consistent. We have an inductive basis in that other smaller systems of a lower order can be proved to be consistent by means of a higher order system. We have empirical grounds in that we have yet to deduce a contradiction from the laws of classical logic. We have a pragmatic basis in that the use of human reason has proved to be of practical value as a framework for conceiving the world.

 

But if the sentence "S is consistent", as applied to human reason, is true, it is provable, as is shown by an application of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. This principle states that there is a sufficient reason for everything. Leibniz intended this to mean that there is an a priori proof for every true sentence (or proposition).

 

But a proof of "S is consistent" cannot be given in the system of human reason (our system). In order to do this, one would have to transcend the bound of human reason, which, as we all know, cannot be done. In less picturesque terms, the proof could only be given in a system more powerful than ours, one which is "up a type" from ours.

 

But it follows from the incompleteness proof and Leibniz's Law that there must be such a system. Hence, higher worlds exist.

 

Step Two: A Synthetic Proof that God Exists

 

Since the laws of logic describe the way our minds necessarily work, we cannot conceive of what a Super Logic of the kind whose existence has been proved is like. We stand with respect to such a system in the same way a person who is a point on a line stands with respect to flatland, or in the same way in which a person in flatland stands with respect to a three-dimensional world. We are simply unable to conceive of such a world. Nevertheless, such a world must exist, as has been demonstrated.

 

Because no logical system can exist apart from some mind, the existence of a Super Logic requires the existence of a higher mind.

 

Since there are infinitely many such logical systems (the same argument could be repeated for each logical system), these systems must describe the workings of an infinite mind. But only God can have an infinite mind. Therefore, God exists.

 

http://www.flowresearch.com/syntheticproof.htm

 

Well...

[Aegeri]

First blatant use of logic? So now your saying that logic is crap when it does suit you?

No, crappy logic is pretty much crappy logic. If whoever is writing the particular thing doesn't actually know everything about what they are talking about, it rather makes their logic invalid.

 

And i dont think that evolution is random, so what are you smoking?

 

Indeed, so you should have already determined why the initial statement is full of rubbish then. Of course, you probably think it is non random for an irrelevant reason, and not the correct biochemical and genetic mechanisms.

 

comments that only show how anable you are to directly challenge the question.

 

Like you? You haven't responded to a single thing that has been bought up in this entire thread. Instead just liberally using your copy and paste.

 

The remanining stuff isn't worth replying too. Try hard provable evidence by repeatable experimentation, and not some random philosophers meanderings while he was reading the newspaper on the toilet.

[Craftsman]

You must admit that you are taking a bias stance. Why?

[Atreides]

The remanining stuff isn't worth replying too. Try hard provable evidence by repeatable experimentation, and not some random philosophers meanderings while he was reading the newspaper on the toilet.

Nice dodge.

[Aegeri]

The remanining stuff isn't worth replying too. Try hard provable evidence by repeatable experimentation, and not some random philosophers meanderings while he was reading the newspaper on the toilet.

Nice dodge.

When there is something factual to respond to, I respond to it. When it is just a bunch of baseless arguments strung along to sound intelligent, I don't bother.

 

I only accept evidence based on experimentation (IE Scientific evidence). This is mostly because I am actually a scientist (Microbiologist) and as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as an experiment that can prove God. As no such experimental evidence has been presented, but a lot of largely meaningless and generally baseless philosophy has, then it isn't worth replying too.

 

Unless you have hard, EXPERIMENTAL evidence that proves either of those two ideas, then it isn't worth replying too (For me, someone who does philosophy might however). It just falls into the same thing as faith, you either take it at first hand and believe it, or you don't. As there is no evidence that supports or refutes it, there is no point in bothering to discuss it for me.

 

I'll never look for evidence to prove God incidently, as that is impossible and defeats the entire point of having any faith to begin with.

 

You must admit that you are taking a bias stance. Why?

 

 

When you can show experiments that even remotely support either statement I ignored (The Journal of British Psychological Medicine would be a great start, or the American Journal of Psychology) your "evidence" will be worth more than a grain of salt