GOD EXISTS

Moderators ... maybe it is time to delete this entire thread! The rest of what I wanted to say I will not in the name of civility. Enough said. HB of CJ (old coot) Junior Captain. I love this Forum ... except for some parts.

MAD-4A wrote:No he said what he means - it states specifically that homosexuality among men is an "abomination to God" - He doesn't like it. A direct address to the rampant "socially accepted" Homosexuality at the time (particularly with the Greeks/Romans) I have been told that it also addresses female/Lesbianism but have yet to find that text.
As for a "child" that is undefined. While I agree with the sentiment of not having sex with a child, the definition of what that means is very skewed and vague and the current socially accepted version is just plain wrong. I see these old "Maury/Springer" reruns stating "Children having Children" and they are wrong, children cannot have children. What is it? 18,17,19,21,13,never? No 2 "laws" can seam to even agree on what age is an "adult" and they are all arbitrary. If we go with a general average of all societies threw-out history and to the definition that the majority of those societies agreed upon then we would come up with the age of adulthood being the point of puberty/menstruation, when the body is physically capable of reproduction (to bring you "evolutionist into it")

Ugh... please don't. Evolution doesn't have a damn thing to say about decisions made by a society regarding when its children have reached sufficient maturity to make informed decisions about their reproductive activities.

before people get all huffy, there were several North American Indian tribes whose average life expectancy was around 16! Yes! just finished Archaeology class & my professor specializes in North American Indians, so no! Don't even try to argue that! They weren't waiting till they were 18 to have kids (or maybe they were & that's why they died out?). Though there were few people around over 17 to tell the teenagers "Don't go into the woods and do that "

Ugh again.

You do understand that doesn't mean the average age of death by old age was 16 right? That just means that they had huge rates of death among infants and children due to disease and lack of medicine and it pulls the average down. But you would still have lots of people living into their 50s and 60s in those societies. It wasn't like they hit 16 and thought "oh crap, I'll keel over in 2 years or so just like my father and grandfather did... better get baby making while I still have the chance!"

It pisses me off when I hear about some guy "knocking-up" his hot teacher & just because he's under a certain age she goes to jail. WHAAAA!!! You know how happy I would have been to have that happen to me when I was his age?

Triple ugh...

Yeah, I would have been too. To the point where any rational decision making processes taking into account things like long term consequences probably wouldn't have been breaking through the hormone surge.

Which is EXACTLY WHY there are age of consent laws and it's the adults responsibility to do the thinking in that situation and step away.


(although this seems to be wandering rather far afield from the "does God exist" subject matter of the thread)

gcomeau wrote:So... yes then. You are, as all other Christians do, claiming God created the universe and the laws of physics.

Do you seriously not understand that that means God isn't bound by the laws of physics and you're making my point? My proof absolutely *does* work in those circumstances. The only way the proof doesn't work... the only way... is if you present an argument God IS bound by the laws of physics. 100%. All the time. God can never ever ever choose to violate the laws of physics. No miracles. No supernatural interventions. God is powerless to violate the physical laws of the universe.

Is. That. What. You. Want. To. Argue?

If you do, I'd love to hear how you rationalize that. How was God bound by the laws of physics before he created them? Or did God just suddenly pop into existence at the same time as the universe? Or is it something else?

If the laws of physics are a product of His will, they are not violated when He expresses His will. That's simple enough to understand. It is also simple enough to understand that He can change the laws of physics in a limited area. That he can change the laws of physics so that any observation we make is consistent with such observations that reflect no changes in the paws of physics. In the circumstance that God exists, there are all possible and so your logic is flawed.

That's enough frustration. TTFN.

HB of CJ wrote:Moderators ... maybe it is time to delete this entire thread! The rest of what I wanted to say I will not in the name of civility. Enough said. HB of CJ (old coot) Junior Captain. I love this Forum ... except for some parts.

Unbelievable.

Why stop there? Proceed to burn all of the bibles. Burn the churches. Shoot all believers. Remove "In God We Trust" from American currency. Surely we shouldn't just stop at removing religion and worship from our public school systems.

What is the worse that can happen after we make Satan feel welcome, anyway - school grounds as warzones?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:So... yes then. You are, as all other Christians do, claiming God created the universe and the laws of physics.

Do you seriously not understand that that means God isn't bound by the laws of physics and you're making my point? My proof absolutely *does* work in those circumstances. The only way the proof doesn't work... the only way... is if you present an argument God IS bound by the laws of physics. 100%. All the time. God can never ever ever choose to violate the laws of physics. No miracles. No supernatural interventions. God is powerless to violate the physical laws of the universe.

Is. That. What. You. Want. To. Argue?

If you do, I'd love to hear how you rationalize that. How was God bound by the laws of physics before he created them? Or did God just suddenly pop into existence at the same time as the universe? Or is it something else?

If the laws of physics are a product of His will, they are not violated when He expresses His will. That's simple enough to understand. It is also simple enough to understand that He can change the laws of physics in a limited area. .

Thank you for proving my point. You are simply defining anything God does as "not a violation of the laws of physics because God is doing it". But that's just playing word games. Saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics suddenly stops working "because it's been violated" and saying the second law of thermodynamics stops working "because God willed it to be so" don't make one tiny bit of difference to the fundamental problem that the law stopped working.

You already conceded here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6469&start=464

...that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data and that the reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations freaking HOLD. Which you have just admitted they don't if we consider God to be part of the equation.


So my argument is upheld. God's existence *cannot* be demonstrated because introducing the hypothesis that the laws of physics can be violated at will by the entity you are trying to demonstrate the existence of invalidates all observational evidence. Nothing you observe can be declared definitive because God might have mucked with the laws of physics while you were making your observation.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:So... yes then. You are, as all other Christians do, claiming God created the universe and the laws of physics.

Do you seriously not understand that that means God isn't bound by the laws of physics and you're making my point? My proof absolutely *does* work in those circumstances. The only way the proof doesn't work... the only way... is if you present an argument God IS bound by the laws of physics. 100%. All the time. God can never ever ever choose to violate the laws of physics. No miracles. No supernatural interventions. God is powerless to violate the physical laws of the universe.

Is. That. What. You. Want. To. Argue?

If you do, I'd love to hear how you rationalize that. How was God bound by the laws of physics before he created them? Or did God just suddenly pop into existence at the same time as the universe? Or is it something else?

If the laws of physics are a product of His will, they are not violated when He expresses His will. That's simple enough to understand. It is also simple enough to understand that He can change the laws of physics in a limited area. .

gcomeau wrote:Thank you for proving my point. You are simply defining anything God does as "not a violation of the laws of physics because God is doing it". But that's just playing word games. Saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics suddenly stops working "because it's been violated" and saying the second law of thermodynamics stops working "because God willed it to be so" don't make one tiny bit of difference to the fundamental problem that the law stopped working.

You already conceded here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6469&start=464

...that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data and that the reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations freaking HOLD. Which you have just admitted they don't if we consider God to be part of the equation.


So my argument is upheld. God's existence *cannot* be demonstrated because introducing the hypothesis that the laws of physics can be violated at will by the entity you are trying to demonstrate the existence of invalidates all observational evidence. Nothing you observe can be declared definitive because God might have mucked with the laws of physics while you were making your observation.

****** *


The act of obtaining observational data mucks with the laws of physics.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

In our case, perhaps we should also consider the 'state' of the measuring device. A device based on particle physics would alter the state of the system and might be partial to particles. Perhaps we should borrow ectoplasmic devices from the Ghostbusters. Ectoplasmic Particle Accelerators anyone?

cthia wrote:

The act of obtaining observational data mucks with the laws of physics.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

Wow, you just keep piling up the evidence that you don't understand physics. But keep telling us about how CERN is going to publish you.


The observer effect is not mucking with the laws of physics, it is a REQUIREMENT of the laws of physics. All it says is you can't observe something without impacting it in some way (for example, you bounce a photon off of it in order to visually see it... which the laws of physics say will have an effect)


Now if what you are observing is a brick wall, that doesn't matter. But it becomes something to take into account when what you are observing is extremely small and sensitive.

Really gcomeau. What is it with you?

Of course I didn't know that!

It was a joke! Do you not see the smiley face?

It refers to an old joke about the Schrodinger Cat experiment. The cat is the observer and she's seducing the laws of physics with nine lives. Unless you do the experiment 10 times to get the correct result. It'll yield the proper result the second time. (10) as in binary math.

Have you ever attended college? I'm really beginning to question your age. What are you, a freshman in High School?

cthia wrote:Really gcomeau. What is it with you?

Of course I didn't know that!

It was a joke! Do you not see the smiley face?

Yes the smilie on the end of the Ghostbusters reference rather clearly indicated that part was a joke. As if clarifiation was needed when referencing Ghostbusters.


The parts of the post above that really didn't read as a joke, and still don't now on review. It read much the same as all the other arguments you have been making throughout this entire thread. Are they all jokes? Because you got rather miffed at me when I asked if you were trolling us.

cthia wrote:Really gcomeau. What is it with you?

Of course I didn't know that!

It was a joke! Do you not see the smiley face?

gcomeau wrote:Yes the smilie on the end of the Ghostbusters reference rather clearly indicated that part was a joke. As if clarifiation was needed when referencing Ghostbusters.


The parts of the post above that really didn't read as a joke, and still don't now on review. It read much the same as all the other arguments you have been making throughout this entire thread. Are they all jokes? Because you got rather miffed at me when I asked if you were trolling us.

It was a joke gcomeau. And, perhaps I better explain the punch line. Schrodinger's cat is his woman who doesn't want to be caught in the act(observed) and killed.

But you are right, I shouldn't have assumed that everyone was aware of that joke. One of my professors told it the first day. I've come across it many times in social circles -- though told a bit differently. The last version featured Ripley's cat in Aliens. Ripley being an actress in both Ghostbusters and Aliens... Oh never mind!