k1 --> k2
Where t = -1 --> 1
Nothing more required.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CASE Branch Office
Washington DC Branch Office
CASE Profile
- CASE - now with holiness
- CASE is diametrically opposed to all faith based organisations. CASE can scientifically show all faith based organisations are wrong. With Science. Our aim is to replace religion in public life, whether that be in politics, education or social policy with our own superior brand of reasoning. CASE does not need to refer to an almighty God to make decisions. CASE considers it would be irresponsible to abdicate personal responsibility to a third party, particularly as that third party is imaginary. Furthermore, CASE would be negligent if it did not engage in showing the works and policies of the faithful to be the fanciful wishthinking that it is.
New Poll - Politics
Preacher Watch
Intelligent Blogs
Websites that may interest you
-
-
-
Covidfreude3 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
I Think I Believe In God12 years ago
-
THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!13 years ago
-
A Few Truths13 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Intelligent Design Advocates at work
Sad but true
What will you choose?
8 comments:
What the....?
What is this arcane looking equation referring to?
Hehe, having read the prior post I can now respond.
"If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."
– Albert Einstein
I think that is the clincher right there Alex. I don't know a lot about physics but what Einstein appears to be saying is that whatever laws are in place for one system then the same laws would hold true for the system(s) relative to it.
Where I think you fall down in this arguement Alex is that you are retrofitting your understanding of God from the current natural world. Rather you should ask what are the rules that stand good for the system K which is the starting point. In this case K I believe is God, the rules that hold for God are not the simple natural laws that are true of the universe today.
Most physists would say that the laws in place today were not always in place, even in the big bang models there are times when the universal laws were not yet present (formation of strong and weak force for example). God being outside the universe and maker of it would therefore be more reasonably said to be "subject" to laws consistent with the whole of how the universe works (including the quantum level).
So if there was a time (and 'place' if you consider subatomic physics) were our understanding of physical laws didn't hold true then what is the problem with saying that God is outside of time's constraints (thus unmade and uncaused)? This is how He has revealed Himself to be, to be blunt I cant see how physics contradicts that.
Dave, I think you should read what Einstein says again. Anything that acts on a system must also co-exist within the same dimensional framework as that second thing. Thus, for God to affect this universe, he must also be subject to time prior to this universe. Accordingly, if he is subject to time from a relative point (ie now) then he must exist an infinite amount of time in the past and, since nothing can traverse an infinite, he cannot exist. Simple really.
PS: sorry I have not been around - I am very very busy atm.
Now I'll use an equivalent of atheistic reasoning here Alex. Theoretical physics has yet to discover how God has interacted with the universe outside of time.
Don't worry it is true..... :) you'll just have to take our word on it.
Again, you miss the point.
Take an apple in all our dimensions. Then take it out of time, can it affect anything within time? Clearly not.
Take that same apple, put it back in all dimensions, except for depth so that it is now 2d. Can it affect anything? No it can't.
The result is that God would have to exist in at least the 13 dimensions (thus far understood) prior to the big bang in order to affect any change (create the universe). Thus, you are left in the same problem ensues. If God is subject to time, then he must also be subject to the problem of existing at an infinitely distant point in the past, an infinity that a temporal being can never cross - thus proving God cannot exist.
There is no resolution to this problem on your side of the aisle. It is only a matter of time iuntil we understand the mechanisms that allowed the formation of the universe (without God). I suggest watching Prof Garrett Lisi in this regard.
The days of your faith are numbered, but do not despair, The quicker it happens, the longer you will have to properly address your life.
The days of your faith are numbered, but do not despair...
Hold up a minute there Alex! This is hardly a time for atheistic triumphalism. This is a problem from our side of the "aisle", true, but it hardly forms an airtight case for your perspective. Especially when the person you are discussing with is admittedly biology based and has done little research into this topic.
Secondly you are claiming that this one problem "proves" there cannot be a God... Really Alex that is poor thinking, especially when you're thus far unable to counter the overwhelming evidence for design of the universe (as admitted by your own high priest), and answer the insufficiency of evolution and atheism to explain current non-human systems (birds) and human systems (consciousnes and morality).
Also, while this may be a problem to explain and understand, it is a theoretical problem. It is very weak arguementation to say that the theoretical problems rising from our understanding of the universe prove that God doesn't exist. Especially when there is strong evidence for the existance of these two facts (ie time and God).
Your equation is so far skewed that it is not even wrong! LOL!
Post a Comment