Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edtharan

  1. Sorry been away for a bit. Actually, I did consider it. Part of the chain of reasoning covers that. Essentially, because the God is all powerful, then He could achieve anything any way He wanted to. This means that He could achieve the same ends as the God of your Hns universe without the need to include suffering (essentially there is a Hnot S universe that has the exact outcomes of any Hns universe available to an all powerful, all knowing God). This means that any suffering is there because the God wanted the suffering only for the sake of that suffering. With an all powerful
  2. It was reading the bible that made me realise that Christianity could not be true. Haivng re-read parts of it in light of what I have learned up to now, when I re-read it I could not help but think of the medical definition of a psychopath. Try it, you talk about understanding it and this is a way to understand it. Read the bible with a check-list of what psychopathy is, and compare it with any reference to God (or even just what God says) you will very rapidly fill in the list. Scarily so. Basically, the personality of God in the bible (new testament or old testament) is pretty much a
  3. According to the bible, it is not the devil that is sending to be punished, the devil is more like a prosecutor in a trial. God is supposed to deliver your verdict and send you to be punished. I suppose you might consider the devil as the one punishing you because it is also his job to carry out the judgements of God on the ones that God finds guilty. This is also the problem with the "miracles" as claimed by Christianity, and even you. With your "miracle" where your mother stopped in the parking lot, you refuse to acknowledge that there could have been some other cause for her to stop,
  4. When most people think of "All Powerful" they just think "Really Powerful". This is why I used the definition in my argument using set theory. In my argument, A is the set of all actions and AC is the acts that create any universe. In my argument, this means any universe that can be conceived by a being that can conceive of anything. Specifically, this includes a universe that does: anything and everything that God would require from this (or really any universe) universe, but has no suffering. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the universe is, whether or not we have free will,
  5. The concept of √Član Vital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lan_vital) has been disproved for a long time now. I find it interesting that people still try to bring it up in some form or another. It was partly the inspiration of the book by Mary Shelly: "Frankenstein". This statement is very important to understanding why your concepts are false. In systems theory any two systems that interact can be grouped together into a larger system. This is essentially what you are saying in your statement above. However, because they interact, they must be able to influence each other (or
  6. Actually, no. There is more than enough time for the eye to evolve. Scientists have worked out that the eye could have evolved, using known rates of mutation, in a minimum time of a few thousand generations. The process goes like this: There are chemicals that react to light. These are quite common throughout organic chemistry. Some cells near the surface of an organism have these chemicals in them. When these chemicals are exposed to light it triggers a cascade reaction in the cell. Over time, any organism that could use this cascade to trigger behaviour (such as increasing the p
  7. Nobody is denying that the bible was written, but we are questioning who the author was. It would be a bit like me claiming to be JRR Tolkien. There is proof that someone wrote these words, but there is no proof that I am Tolkien.
  8. I would say both. One could just as well say that the universe was sneezed out of some nose (fits with the expanding universe we see). Maybe you would call that sneezer God. Or, maybe the universe was created due to the uncertainty between time and space at plank scales (which doesn't require a divine being/God). So, unless you have data that determines which of these (or any number of other situations) are true, then you don't have any evidence and thus can not be basing your beliefs on a rational judgement. Not a complete list but: 1) All powerful 2) All knowing 3) Perfe
  9. Key word "All". Mt Everest (tallest mountain in the world) is around 8,840 metres. This means that the horizon you could see would be around 10km away. I think even just 1 kingdom would be more than 20 in diameter. Therefore you could not see all the kingdoms in the world from even the tallest mountain. But this is exactly how a con artist would want you to think. Back in the american old west days, there were travelling salesmen that would go around selling tonics (one of the ingredients they would ay was in the tonic was "Snake Oil" - and they became known as snake oil salesmen
  10. How about being able to do an experiment yourself that has evolution occur right in front of your face. What you need: Pencil and eraser Several pieces of paper (or you could use a word processor if you want to save paper) 2 Coins And a fair bit of time (a few hours at least). Setup: - On one piece of paper write a word (about 6 letters will do). Put this aside so you can remember it. We will call this the target word. - On another piece of paper write random letters (call this the see word). It doesn't need to be the same number as the word you wrote. Also, unless you have a
  11. Actually you don't need to invoke a new particle or anything like that. The answer is simple. Above, I talked about L-Systems, and how they are a finite state machine. Finite state machines get inputs and change their state according to those inputs and their current internal state (so as the state changes, so to can their reaction to a given input). If one side of the root get more water than the other, then this gives a gradient of water across the growing end of the root. The state change in the growing cells are that if one region has less water than another, then slow down growth
  12. How can you tell if someone is lying to you? Simple. Check to see if what they are saying matches with reality. If it doesn't match with reality, then they are lying. So, does the bible state anything that does not match with reality? Matthew 4:8. Apparently there is a mountain high enough you can see every where on Earth. Mt Everest is known to be the highest mountain on Earth and you can not see every where on Earth. This is a passage in the bible that does not match with reality. Hmm, does this mean that because the bible does not match with reality, then the bible
  13. In quantum mechanics (and in science in general), the term "observation" does not equal observation by a concious entity (if they meant that they would have said that). Strictly speaking "observation" in science means: "Something that interacts with the system". So an electron could be "observed" by a photon, even though the photon has no conciousness at all. Conciousness is not a requirement of observation. In the double slit experiment, what causes the behaviour to change is specifically what type of interaction takes place. AN interaction is a sort of exchange of information
  14. Actually, the best model for plant growth is Lindenmayer Systems (L Systems). Snowflakes are best represented by DLAs. If you think about how a snowflake forms, it forms from a seed (a bit of dust or ice crystal, etc) then as it moves through the supercooled air/water mixture (eg a cloud), the molecules of water bump into the seed and "stick" to it becoming part of the flake. The growing flake and the water molecules in the air follow Brownian motion. This is really a textbook case of what a DLA is. Plants grow by cell division. When a cell divides genes inside it can be turned on
  15. Me too. Sorry for the delay. Yes, we should get changes in ocean circulation, wind patterns and other things too, not just heat. the thing is, the warming won't stop at this temperature. If we keep adding CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, then this will keep retaining more and more energy and thus increasing climate change. Think of riding a runway car down a hill. The first few meters or so you aren't going fast and you could jump off or even apply the breaks easily enough. At this point the ride is benign. But, if the car isn't slowed down or stopped, then it will get faster a
  16. There are un-caused events. Quantum fluctuations (as a direct example see the Casimir effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) can and do exist and these are completely random (actually there are several effects that if they weren't truly random would cause certain experiments to get a different result than they do - such as the 2 slit experiment : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_slit_experiment). So it is demonstrably proven that there are random, un-caused events that occur. This renders your entire argument false.
  17. It starts with the question: Is God rational? Well what is rationality? Simply put, rationality is a consistent behaviour given consistent situations. So, if God is rational, then He will act in a consistent way. This is essential if God is to be good. Take this: God is presented with a situation where there is two choices: 1) Do something Good 2) Do something Evil If God is rational, then He will choose to do good. If He is irrational, then He will randomly choose good sometimes and evil other times. Thus, if God is Good, then He must act rationally. Of course He doesn't
  18. The proof of human induced climate change can be demonstrated by a piggy bank. If you have a piggy bank that you place $10 in each week but then remove $10 from it, you know that, regardless of how much money is in the piggy bank, that the amount of money in the bank will remain constant. But, if you remove $5 from the bank instead of the $10, then you know that the amount of money in the piggy bank is going to increase. Even if you removed $9.99 each week, the amount of money in the bank will still go up (not as quickly, but it will go up). With Earth, the only way it can gain ene
  19. Yes, there are other forms of evolution than Darwinian evoultion, in fact, tehre are even types of evolution that biological systems (as they exist) can not perform. Evolution is a word that means "change", but it has many different contects it can be used in. Usually when most people talk about evoultion they mean either: Change over time Biological Evolution (and mostly then mean biological evolution). Basically the context is about what kind of system the "evolution" is happening to. As an example, it is possible to set up a computer program where "Lamarckian Evolution" (
  20. Many of the climate models do account for the solar cycles, so this argument that they don't take them into account is false. But, solar cycles are actually a fairly short term effect compared to the effect of greenhouse gasses. The Sun has an 11 year solar cycle (5.5 years from peak to minimum), where as the effects of greenhouse gasses are taken over 50 to 100 years. Also, the variation in energy over that is not much compared to the amount of energy retained though greenhouse gasses. And, the variation is both positive (peak) and negative (minimum) which over the short period it occurs
  21. Another thing to remember is that the bib bang is only the creation of Matter/Energy and Space/Time. This does not preclude there existing "something" there to create Matter/Energy and Space/Time. But, since this "somthing" created time, it could not, of course exist before the big bang as that would require time to exist before it was created (which is nonsensical). It would be more accurate to think of this "something" as existing eternally at the big bang. Causality, however, is another matter. In the classical, macroscopic world, causality seems to be a hard and fast rule but when
  22. None of these are proven. They are assumed. Under some interpretations of quantum mechanics, when you are dealing with very small periods of time (the so called Planck time), the notion of before and after (cause and effect) break down (see the book "A brief History of Time" for the details of this argument). In these situations, it is possible for the effect to come before the cause. In this case, the universe could come into existence (effect) and this is due to the laws of quantum mechanics in the universe (cause). At this point, all of the above premises are still held as true, but
  23. Observing a system in QM is not about conciousness, it is about interaction. This means that a single photon is capable of "observing" a quantum system if it interacts with it. However, this also means that the photon that interacted with the system becomes part of the system. Extending this to a whole cat, then even though the cat might be able to "observe" the system in the box, it eventually becomes part of the system. And, because we are outside the box and are not interacting with the inside, of the box, we are not part of the system, so it still makes sense for us to ask the ques
  24. Me personally, no. My ethics prohibit me from doing such things. However, to give you perspective, the work of fiction known as "Lord of the Rings", has over 500,000 words in it. (There are probably some people who might believe that it is real). If you take all the works of JRR Tolkien then there would be will over 800,000 words he has written. But lets look at yourself. If you wrote on average 1,000 words a day, it would only take you 770 days to reach the amount of words you have used as the example. 1,000 words a day might sound like a lot, but in this post I have already written 1
  25. If you only look at a single mutation, then yes, it is extremely improbably that it will be beneficial. But, if a single mutation is beneficial, then it is more likely to be passed on (because that organism will be better at surviving). Also, the chain of mutations that lead to a specific trait don't only effect that trait. They often have many other effects with the organism. One such is light sensitivity. This can be the by-product of other traits. The chemicals in our eyes are similar to many other chemicals that are used for other tasks, such a chlorophyll (and other too). So the l
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.