On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:01:59 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeePost by TimPost by Bob WardlawPost by TimPost by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeePost by Bob WardlawPost by Malcolm McMahonPost by Andrew"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Malcolm McMahonScientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. LeeHow does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. LeePost by Bob WardlawThis means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
For the umpteenth time, imbecile, they are minimal extensions to what
is known.
Unlike the imaginary magical superbeing for which there is no
evidence, with a whole slew of equally unjustified powers, which you
plucked out of your arse.
And, again, nobody insists that any one of the natural explanations is
the right one - unlike your imaginary magical superbeing which
religious loonies insist did it in the real world beyond the mythology
of somebody else's religion.
Either provide as much evidence for it as there is for quantum events,
or crawl back into the woodwork.
Post by Bob WardlawI studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
Creation is baseless bullshit derived from bronze age mythology. It is
an outright lie to call it science, because there is no creation
science at all. Just attacks on objective science by a combination of
the wilfully ignorant and the deliberate lies of their leaders.
Post by Bob WardlawWhat was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
Sounds like a stupid, dishonest distortion.
Even Erwin Shroedinger didn't say the cat was dead and alive at the
same time - it was a thought experiment to show ridiculous he felt the
Copenhagen interpretation was.
And it doesn't make the experimental results from quantum mechanics go
away, whatever you imagine.
Post by Bob WardlawHe further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
All it means, is that there are things we don't know, so we don't
insist that they happened that way.
But, and for the umpteenth time, this isn't the global "don't know"
that religious loonies imagine. It is within the bounds of what we
_do_ know.
And, again, nobody insists that any one of these _justified_ scenarios
is fact. The answer might lie in any one of them, or be something else
if new hypotheses are developed as the knowledge base is updated by
future observations or research.
Unlike the totally unjustified god that religious loonies insist did
it, to people outside their religion before they've even demonstrated
it to them.
You don't seem to understand that before you can claim your god in the
real world, you have to use the tools and methods of the real world -
ie in the scientific arena, you have to provide the absent scientific
evidence.
Which we all know you can't, because the information simply isn't
there so dishonest philosophers try to argue it into existence with
"proofs" amounting to nothing more than"spot the fallacy" exercises to
see where they try to generate it.
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeeYou keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer.
A standard theist personal lie.
What do you imagine using lies ad hominems achieves, other than
telling us what a thoroughly and nastily dishonest person you are, as
well as an idiot trying to refute objective scientific research using
transparent fallacies?
Scientists, whether they are theist or atheist, don't even think of
religion when they "do" science, although a few dishonest one try to
reconcile their religious beliefs with their science when they talk
to a religious audience - which thinks their rationalisation is
scientific.
Post by Bob WardlawHe relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
Are you pretending that Casimir, Polder and other physicists faked
their work? And that Lamoreaux and others were lying when they
experimentally verified it?
"SOMETHING FROM NOTHING" isn't "pure hypothesis", imbecile.
When it was first proposed as a conclusion from Heisenberg's and
Dirac's work, it was hypothesis - a justified, minimal extension from
what was already known.
But the hypothesis was confirmed experimentally.
Did you Google the Casimir Effect?
Or the Lamb Shift?
One of the regulars here, actually once worked in the same university
building at his university as Willis Lamb, although not in the same
department. He said that...
"I once worked in the same department as Willis did.
Not worked with him, mind, just in the same department, a couple
of floors down. In more than one sense.
"I did get to attend a lecture of his. It was on the problems
involved in quantum measurement. Takeaway: it ain't easy."
Post by Bob Wardlawuniverse, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreadingMorris is
just trying to say that space never is truly emptybut we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Notice that he doesn't insist that this particular model is the right
one, or that it is our spacetime.
It was the usual dishonest quote mining.
Do you honestly imagine that your wilful ignorance will make objective
results from quantum mechanics go away?
Instead of trying to pick holes in leading edge research, some of
which has won Nobel Prizes, why not provide as much evidence for the
god you want people to think did it, as there is for the results of
research into quantum mechanics?
_Before_ claiming it did anything at all, and trying to justify it
using the argument from your own personal ignorance?
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeeYou need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
Why can't you stop lying about this?
How come a minimal extrapolation from experimentally verified quantum
physics, is crazy - while insisting that a totally unjustified,
unevidenced and unnecessary imaginary magical superbeing from bronze
age mythology did it?
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeePost by TimPost by Bob WardlawPost by TimThe first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period. So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
No. Our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down.
The "holy grail" of physics is the unified "theory of everything"
which explains both the deterministic macro level and the statistical
quantum level. We will have to wait until this is found.
In the meantime, the scenarios described in the Vuletic article remain
_justified_ hypotheses. Why is it so hard to understand this, or that
nobody insists any one of them is the actual answer?
While your imaginary omnipotent magical superbeing that you insist is
the answer, has no justification whatsoever,
And that before you try to introduce it into the scientific arena, you
have to justify is scientifically?
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeeAnd it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
So what?
Penrose isn't the last word on quantum mechanics, and its study has
come a long way since Paul Dirac.
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeeGoogle the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
No liar. The quantum side of it has been experimentally verified.
And extending it to the formation of the universe is actually a
minimal extrapolation.
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeeSo cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by TimPost by Bob WardlawPost by TimPost by Bob Wardlawbut neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation.
A standard theist lie from a paranoid believer who cannot grasp even
if a scientist is theist, he leaves god(s) out of his science.
Because as far as science is concerned, they aren't there until
scientific evidence for them is provided.
Post by Bob WardlawHe had the desire to have a creation
without God.
STOP LYING, pathological liar.
Why is it so hard to understand just how irrelevant gods are outside
the specific context of what (in his case, and where you're posting
this nastiness) is *merely* *somebody* *else's* *religion*?
And that when theists practice science, they leave their god-beliefs
at the door?
Post by Bob WardlawSo, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation.
Stop lying, pathological liar. He was describing the current state of
scientific knowledge.
And no matter how much you lie about it, try to dismiss it, etc, it
won't un-happen.
Post by Bob WardlawSo, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
It's easier to lie about people, the state of scientific research
(which has provided everyday applications that even you take for
granted), etc than actually learn something about it.
Post by Bob WardlawSo, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Only because you're too stupid to understand that agnosticism and
atheism are orthogonal. And that you are agnostic about something
plucked out of your arse vs the objective results of leading edge
scientific research.
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeeThey _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.
And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.
Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.
It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Well, moron? Couldn't address this?
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeePost by TimPost by Bob WardlawPost by TimIt contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.
These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.
When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,
He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
You read it this time, and instead of discussing its details, you
resorted to personal lies as an ad hominem excuse to distract from
that.
Post by Bob WardlawPost by Christopher A. LeeIt's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.
But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.