the god question

Post Reply New Topic

Indeed it would appear that we have a person with a smattering of scientific literacy, bending a small amount of knowledge and understanding to suite their own dogma, and then insulting people who on the face of it have a far greater literacy.

Old david might I suggest that instead of trolling out the worn out tactics of the creationists, eg entropy, causation, and "science is a prejudicial dogma" You could instead avail yourself of the many wonderful books explaining how we know what we know. You could do far worse than a brief history of everything by Bill Bryson, then, why does=mc2 by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, then grand design by Stephen Hawking, followed by (and particularly pertinent to this conversation) a universe from nothing Lawrence Krauss. That should get you started. Once you have read these I can suggest several more. Then maybe you won't need to resort to insults when debating science with people far more literate in the subject than yourself.

We haven't even got to the guts of the argument and already the big guys are trying to bluff me out of the argument.

Don't worry, fellas. I've done this before and I know how Materialists protect and sustain their irrational superstition.

You wouldn't be debating me if you didn't think that your opinions are "righter" than mine.

Seriously, if you want a good discussion, then don't come off sounding like a troll.

So oldavid you have "not even got to the guts of the argument" yet you have already misrepresented entropy and taken the almost aristotelian approach to knowledge with the term "self evident" This should be enthralling

What I find even sadder than the religious debating science not understanding how we know what we know, is their almost invariable lack of understanding of the historical reasons for why they believe what they believe.

Nice try, Narrator. If I had been disinterested and inattentive in High School physics and chemistry you might have been able to convince me that you have special insights into Natural Laws that are not available to the "profane".

Your motor car has mass (and thus inertia) and potential (by being on the top of a hill) that can be converted into momentum as it rolls down the hill, up the smaller one, down again etc. All perfectly in accordance with the dissipation of potential that is entropy.

Entropy, on the other hand, (like time and space, for example) does not have momentum.

I once tried to wade through several pages of obscure formulas and equations from the clever idiot in the talking wheelchair purporting to show that time periodically goes back and forth like a pendulum (has inertia). It was such a far-fetched notion (another silly Materialist's attempt to "get around" the problem of entropy) that it never took off; which is why the school system is not trying to stuff it into empty heads as a "fact". Much easier to ignore entropy as if it had no bearing on anything but steam engines.

Snowflakes.
Because of the dipolar (practically tripolar) nature of the water molecule (the axis of the link between the Oxygen atom and the two Hydrogen atoms is about 120 degrees) when a water crystal grows by just about one molecule at a time, the lowest energy configuration of the molecules is some multiple or whole division of 120 degrees. Snowflakes are typically hexagonal in shape with all the "outgrowths" conforming to the basic angular geometry. It's an entropically "comfortable" way for water molecules to arrange themselves.

Another thing that I was tempted to put into my last post (but I chucked it because I thought it "too much, too soon") is about "knowing" things. What can you know and how do you know that you know it? I still think I'll leave it 'till later.

Kind regards,
David

Stay in the kitchen, Arthur, if you can stand the heat.

All this talk of entropy, we all agree that this is a natural law. What's your point? How does entropy prove the existence of God. All it suggests is that the universe should eventually become less ordered, but not uniformly so. As to entropy proving that God must have created the universe and the this is a self evident truth, you have a heck of a long way to go demonstrating this. Insulting the work of theoretical scientists because they are attempting to show naturalistic causes which provide a refutation of your "self evident truth" just shows the level of you indoctrination to the cause. I like many others you no doubt have encountered do not have an answer to the birth of the universe, however I most certainly see no reason to fill this lack of understanding with God, in the total history of man there has never been a single incident that demonstrates in any way the existence of a supernatural realm. Nothing has ever been shown to back up the claims of any supernatural belief, and this is why I see no logical reason to look past the natural world.

Oldavid, I won't go there with you. When you decide to behave, then I might bother, but as someone who has seen your type in over 25 years of electronic forum life (inc. bbs's before the Internet), I won't take your bait. Cheers. Enjoy the trolling.

Almost interesting, DentArthurDent. The best you can do to maintain your ideological prejudices is to find a deeper sand-pit to bury your head in.

The very idea of entropy is that things start with an order and potential and work down from there.

Mate!... insulting the "work" of mathemagicians should be what any rational creature should do.

As Narrator has said it is pointless discussing these issues with someone who only accepts scientific findings which they can bend to their own ends. As to your previous comment I am well aware of the nature of entropy,I am also aware that our current state of knowledge raises some tantalizing questions about the the universe and how it was formed, but unlike you I will not extrapolate a little bit of knowledge leading to a great many questions into a theory of everything.

I rather thought you had more smarts than the average telly- watcher. Oh well!

It's an interesting variation on what I've had, to be sure.

There is not a hope in Hell that I will "behave" by parroting fad nonsense.

I have been effectively exiled from more than one forum because I do not run with fashionable opinions.

Curiously, the most ideologically intolerant places I have ever visited are those that preach "tolerance". It is utterly disappointing to me that autistic types are so willing to run after fads and fashions just so they can be judged "normal" by the self-ingratiating judges of "normalcy".

He doesnt exist thats all there is to it hes silent its because he doesnt exist and the no proof he doesn't exist is a cop-out there is no proof he does exist and more reasons for a god not to exist than there are for one to exist! *drops the mic*

Oldavid, out of curiosity how would you summarize your religious beliefs?

More completely unjustifiable assertions. Poor silly fellow! When you have calmed down I will try to explain the basics of knowing.

I wouldn't for the likes of you. What sort of smarmy prick are you that thinks you can incriminate me simply because I don't endorse your ridiculous ideology?