a challenge to those who feel intelligent

[Polymirize]

No! I said quarks and leptons are the smallest particles known and that if you can find one smaller this is a very very big deal. Didnt you read Herr Smitlers post? Plancks constant is the granularity of free space - there is no size smaller than that! You are the one who asserted, with out any justification whatsoever, that matter is infinitely divisible - you made the assertion now back it up. Modern Physics, if you know anything about it, (sic) says you are wrong Dead wrong! Neither matter nor energy nor space itself are infinitely divisible. And if you think that the difference between a photon, a quark and say the energy in a gravitational field is just a matter of details then you really have no grasp of physics at all!

I have a legitimate question at this time, and hopefully you'll have good answers since you claim to work in this field. How do you know quarks and leptons are the smallest thing? Can you explain more about plancks constant? what's limiting the size? And how did the constant get derived? I keep hearing about quantum particles violating the laws of physics lately, appearing and disappeaing aparently at random. Possibly something about multiple dimensions? But are you saying we've actually reached a limit? We've hit a boundary?

I have this huge suspicion that time will reveal that you're calling the world flat, or declaring that the sun rotates around the earth.

[Reefer Rogue]

Would you state some of the evidence for theism?

If there really is evidence for both sides then you just dont know - "choosing to believe" one side is intellectually dishonest IMO


Sensei: When they die, the atheists will only get to find out if they are wrong and the theists will only find out if they are right - otherwise dead is dead and there will be noone knowing anything

Here's a modern cosmological argument in favour of theism:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
(By definition of intelligibility)

2. The existence of the universe thus either:
(a) is unintelligible, or
(b) has an explanation (from step 1)

3. No rational person should accept 2-a (By definition of rationality)

4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanation.
(from steps 2 and 3)

5. There are only 3 kinds of explanations:

(a) Scientific: Explanations of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the event explained)

(b) Personal: Explanations that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

(c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.) Therefore (hold on to your chair)

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

Therefore,

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. (ontological arguement)

I'm Agnostic, I can't stand religion. :thumbsup:

[Bone Killah]

That isnt in any way a proof of inteligence,if u think that their is no god than prove it yourself.Nobody makes you believe in god, it is your choice to make,so stop this stupid thread.

[Cronton83]

can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your religious beliefs are accurate?

NOBODY CAN TELL YOU IF THEY'RE RELIGION IS ACCURATE. IF ANYONE KNEW FOR SURE THE RIGHT RELIGION WE'D ALL CONVERT TO IT. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I BELIEVE THAT EVERY RELIGION HAS THE SAME MESSAGE. LIVE UR LIFE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS AND GOOD MORALS... AND U'LL BE JUST FINE!

Cronton

[homemade]

dude that has nuthin to do w/ nethin. just shut up before u make urself look stupider.

stupider is not a word...it's more stupid

[altagid]

I have a legitimate question at this time, and hopefully you'll have good answers since you claim to work in this field. How do you know quarks and leptons are the smallest thing? Can you explain more about plancks constant? what's limiting the size? And how did the constant get derived? I keep hearing about quantum particles violating the laws of physics lately, appearing and disappeaing aparently at random. Possibly something about multiple dimensions? But are you saying we've actually reached a limit? We've hit a boundary?

I have this huge suspicion that time will reveal that you're calling the world flat, or declaring that the sun rotates around the earth.

You are asking good questions but they are big ones and I dont know how to do this succinctly.

We dont know that they are the smallest things in existence - in fact we suspect that there are indeed smaller components and String Theory is the main hope right now. But they are the smallest things that can be experimentally verified with the tools the we have at this time. Mainly thats the big supercolliders - like the one at Fermi Lab or Cern. Unfortunately what we do know is that if we tried to build a super collider large enough and fast enough to produce something smaller than a quark, the collider would be so large it couldnt fit on the planet or even within the solar system. This means that, at present time we have no experimental way to look for things like strings. And when you cant test your theories with an experiment you are no longer doing science - its philosophy or something else - actually its called "bullshit".

The atomic structure of matter was really discovered at the end of the 19th century and into the first part of the 20th. This was really the first confrontation with the granularity of nature. Suddenly water was no longer continously divisible. Further investigations, Bohr, Einstein, began to show that energy itself is lumpy and the size of the smallest lumps are related to Plancks Constant. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...electric2.html

These ideas, and their implications are the foundations of the Quantum theory of physics and they were considered difficult and surprising at the time and are still considered very difficult today despite the drivel that one hears from Star Trek and solemnly recanted from the mouths of moronic stoners on this site. (I have no real problem with people who are ignorant - every one is ignorant about lots stuff - what bothers me are ignorant people who dont know they are ignorant and make pompous statements like "if you know anything about physics" when they know nothng themselves - nuff ranting . ) Glibly the theory says that energy is granular and its behaviour is always to some extent random. It turns out that if matter is lumpy then so is space because they are intertwined and in consequence space itself is lumpy and again plancks constant is the measure of its granularity.

Because of the uncertainty principle you can never have a clean vacuum. If you did you would know for sure that there are no particles in that region of space and quantum theory says you cant know that much - so it must be that particles are randomly appearing and dissappearing in you "vacuum". On the average you have a vacuum but at any particular time you are likely to have an evanescent matter anti matter pair or two in your vacuum flask. This really bizarre consquence of quantum theory can be experimantaly verified by an effect known as the Casimir effect. The quantum version of the conservation laws says they only apply on the average. IMO soaking up this idea is better than smoking weed

You have more questions but I think I have gone on long enough

[intheclouds]

A great sentiment but smoking what you believe doesnt amount to proof. I have a Book of Mormon somewhere with onionskin pages - if I use it for rolling papers what does that prove?

No thats not it. Let me try to explain it a little better..............I believe it was put here to help us. So when I smoke it and it helps me to relax, feel better and just generally a feeling of well being, That proves (to me, maybe not everyone) that it was put here for the purpose of helping us.

PS. I hope this makes better sense. I was feeling no pain when I wrote the 1st statement and when I went back I seen why you said what you did.

[Reefer Rogue]

You are asking good questions but they are big ones and I dont know how to do this succinctly.

We dont know that they are the smallest things in existence - in fact we suspect that there are indeed smaller components and String Theory is the main hope right now. But they are the smallest things that can be experimentally verified with the tools the we have at this time. Mainly thats the big supercolliders - like the one at Fermi Lab or Cern. Unfortunately what we do know is that if we tried to build a super collider large enough and fast enough to produce something smaller than a quark, the collider would be so large it couldnt fit on the planet or even within the solar system. This means that, at present time we have no experimental way to look for things like strings. And when you cant test your theories with an experiment you are no longer doing science - its philosophy or something else - actually its called "bullshit".

The atomic structure of matter was really discovered at the end of the 19th century and into the first part of the 20th. This was really the first confrontation with the granularity of nature. Suddenly water was no longer continously divisible. Further investigations, Bohr, Einstein, began to show that energy itself is lumpy and the size of the smallest lumps are related to Plancks Constant. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...electric2.html

These ideas, and their implications are the foundations of the Quantum theory of physics and they were considered difficult and surprising at the time and are still considered very difficult today despite the drivel that one hears from Star Trek and solemnly recanted from the mouths of moronic stoners on this site. (I have no real problem with people who are ignorant - every one is ignorant about lots stuff - what bothers me are ignorant people who dont know they are ignorant and make pompous statements like "if you know anything about physics" when they know nothng themselves - nuff ranting . ) Glibly the theory says that energy is granular and its behaviour is always to some extent random. It turns out that if matter is lumpy then so is space because they are intertwined and in consequence space itself is lumpy and again plancks constant is the measure of its granularity.

Because of the uncertainty principle you can never have a clean vacuum. If you did you would know for sure that there are no particles in that region of space and quantum theory says you cant know that much - so it must be that particles are randomly appearing and dissappearing in you "vacuum". On the average you have a vacuum but at any particular time you are likely to have an evanescent matter anti matter pair or two in your vacuum flask. This really bizarre consquence of quantum theory can be experimantaly verified by an effect known as the Casimir effect. The quantum version of the conservation laws says they only apply on the average. IMO soaking up this idea is better than smoking weed

You have more questions but I think I have gone on long enough

You ignored my post.

[Adolf Smittler]

Here's a modern cosmological argument in favour of theism:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
(By definition of intelligibility)

2. The existence of the universe thus either:
(a) is unintelligible, or
(b) has an explanation (from step 1)

3. No rational person should accept 2-a (By definition of rationality)

4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanation.
(from steps 2 and 3)

5. There are only 3 kinds of explanations:

(a) Scientific: Explanations of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the event explained)

(b) Personal: Explanations that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

(c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.) Therefore (hold on to your chair)

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

Therefore,

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. (ontological arguement)

I'm Agnostic, I can't stand religion. :thumbsup:

pretty good logic except for one part: the universe is the ONLY thing that exists necessarily. the universe is, by definition, everything. it must exist because nothing can not be part of the universe.

[Adolf Smittler]

a couple of links i hope will clarify my views on religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster