Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Argument supporting existence of a God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    I know the teaching that c is the speed of light and that no matter can travel faster than the speed of light.
    However, that is a false teaching.
    c is merely a mathematical constant that is related to the relationship between mass and energy, but how fast light travels in a vacuum has nothing to do with that relationship.
    Matter can travel faster than the speed of light.
    Hmmm.
    I thought that the top speed of light was the fastest (known) of anything.
    While it may appear that matter can travel faster than light, it is only because the light slowed down and not that the matter increased speed beyond the speed light could travel.

    We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
    They already know monsters exist.
    We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by SaintAndrew View Post
      God defined as an intelligent, maximized perfected being.

      A.
      Something has always existed. a.
      Potential for Change has always existed. b.
      There is no evidence or reason to suggest that Change is not and has not been, substantially continuous. c.
      Therefore one can deduce
      There are (and has been) an infinite number of Change events.

      B.
      Evolution exists as a consequence of Change events. d.
      A rare portion of Evolution is progressive (i.e. gives rise to higher, more intelligent life forms, with greater survivor-ship potential)
      There is no reason to suggest that evolution is necessarily restricted to the history of Earth. e
      Therefore one can deduce
      Given an infinite number of Change events a maximized realization of progressive Evolution has occurred.

      A maximized progressively evolved being has therefore existed, and may (especially in view of enhanced survivor-ability) still exist.

      A maximized progressively evolved being is a maximally perfected being.

      A maximized perfected being is God

      Support:

      a. Philosophically, the sum total of all existence could never have at any time been Nothing, as Nothing has no potential to produce anything or change into anything. Since we exist now, Something must have always existed. This statement also follows in physics from the Law of Conservation of Energy.

      b. Philosophically, the sum total of all existence must have always had potential for change or else Existence would have (without potential for change) been forever "stuck" in one state. This is not the case now, hence potential for change has always existed.

      c. By observation our present existence that matter and energy is in a continuous state of change. There is no evidence that this is ever not the case. There is no proposed mechanism where an all encompassing frozen state of all Existence could even be possible.

      d. See Darwin.

      e. Rule of modesty. It would be remarkable that our species (having undergone evolution) are unique amidst the cosmos.
      God is a transliteration of the Germanic tribal word Gott. This is a title/name they gave to all their idols and totems. Neither god nor gott conveys the character and person of the Creater and Sustainer of life.
      I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

      "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

      I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
      A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
      If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

      Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

      I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

      Comment


      • #93
        Oh, yeah. OP.

        Where did that guy go?
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          Apparently, photons have an upper limit on mass they might have of 7×10-17eV (according to long-distance electro-static measurements).

          But maybe they have mass and Newton remains in the picture.

          There are alternatives to Einstein out there.
          That's interesting. If I've understood, they say that if photons are truly massless, then we ought to be able to show it, and that so far, we can only positively confirm that photons do not possess mass more than the 7×10-17eV figure. They may indeed have zero mass, but we can't prove it definitively.
          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

          @Nee_Nihilo

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Clete View Post
            Light has no mass. That is why it travels at the speed of light. All massless particles and only massless particles travel at c.
            A photon walks into a hotel. The desk clerk says, "Welcome to our hotel. Can we help you with your luggage?" The photon says, "No thanks, I'm traveling light."
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              In the world of maths, exactness is possible. However, E is mathematically demonstrable as only approximately equal to mass times the speed of light squared.
              Saying it doesn't make it so.

              It might be possible to find the exact relationship. I'm not sure on that one. Or it might be like pi. Irrational numbers are only able to be expressed exactly by inventing a symbol for them.
              Well, yes and no. Mathematically speaking, yes, but there is no physical relationship between any real circle and the 900th decimal place of π. Once you get passed some number of decimal places, the figure becomes truly meaningless in relation to any physical thing. Eventually you get down to things that would less than one Planck Length in size.

              In the physical realm, c is, as you say, defined as the speed of light under perfect conditions, so that number can never be found in direct testing, as there will always be a margin of error.
              That does not render either the value of c nor Einstien's equations aproximations.

              Maths is the only way to define Einstein's equation exactly, but that is yet to be done (as far as I know).
              I don't understand what you mean here.
              sigpic
              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                So what?
                What do you mean, so what?

                So, it's not an aproximation and it's merely a mathematical contruct. That is precisely how fast light travels in a vacuum.

                The speed of light has nothing to do with the mathematical constant c in the formula E=mc2.
                Contradict yourself much?

                Exactly.
                Thank you for conceding this meaningless debate.

                It doesn't matter whether we call π "the speed of tortoise" or whether we call c "the speed of light".
                π and c are both mathematical constants.
                Any apparent similarity between the speed of tortoise and π is a mere coincidence.
                Any apparent similarity between the speed of light and c is also a mere coincidence.
                And as such it is irrelevant, which was my point. Again, thank you for conceding the point.
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                  That's interesting. If I've understood, they say that if photons are truly massless, then we ought to be able to show it, and that so far, we can only positively confirm that photons do not possess mass more than the 7×10-17eV figure. They may indeed have zero mass, but we can't prove it definitively.
                  Actually, the fact that it travels at c is the proof.

                  All massless particles travel at c. The reason they travel at c is because they are massless. Thus, any particle traveling at c must be massless.

                  This is true, in part, because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any amount of mass to the speed of light.
                  sigpic
                  "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    Actually, the fact that it travels at c is the proof.
                    That may be the case, but the link Stripe provided didn't say that, and instead talked about some other means of determining whether photons are truly and really massless.
                    Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    All massless particles travel at c. The reason they travel at c is because they are massless. Thus, any particle traveling at c must be massless.

                    This is true, in part, because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any amount of mass to the speed of light.
                    But doesn't the above depend upon E=mc^2 being infinitely correct? iow, isn't this begging the question?

                    Again as far as I understood what I read from Stripe's link, attempts have been made to determine whether photons are truly and really massless, and the best measurement method available at the time of that link's writing, and assuming that it is accurate, basically has a 'method detection limit' of the quoted 7×10-17eV figure, and so iow it hasn't been positively determined through measurement that photon in fact are truly and really massless, because the best method's detection limit is positive, and not zero.

                    (If the method's detection limit was zero, then it would be able to definitely positively confirm---or deny---that photons are indeed massless.)

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_limit
                    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                    @Nee_Nihilo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                      That may be the case, but the link Stripe provided didn't say that, and instead talked about some other means of determining whether photons are truly and really massless.
                      I don't know how to explain the science, I'm not that much of an expert. It has to do with Maxwell's equations, and the Lorenz Tranformation, neither of which anyone one disputes and what they mean in relation to why nothing can travel faster than 299792458 m/s.

                      The bottom line is that nothing with mass can ever attain the speed of light.

                      But doesn't the above depend upon E=mc^2 being infinitely correct? iow, isn't this begging the question?
                      No. The fact that nothing with mass can travel faster than light is not a consequence of Einstein's equations, it's the other way around. Einstein's equations are what they are because 299792458 m/s is the cosmic speed limit. It is the Lorenz Tranformation that predicts the value of c, not Einstein's theories.

                      Again as far as I understood what I read from Stripe's link, attempts have been made to determine whether photons are truly and really massless, and the best measurement method available at the time of that link's writing, and assuming that it is accurate, basically has a 'method detection limit' of the quoted 7×10-17eV figure, and so iow it hasn't been positively determined through measurement that photon in fact are truly and really massless, because the best method's detection limit is positive, and not zero.
                      If Maxwell's equations are correct then asking the question is a moot point. The fact that they travel at c is proof that they must be massless.

                      If someone were to prove that light has mass, it wouldn't just be the last century of physics that would be crushed to powder but virutally the whole of science itself and our ability to communicate meaningful information. Causality itself would be crushed to powder, not just Einstein.

                      Watch this video, it does a much better job of explain it than I am capable of.

                      https://youtu.be/msVuCEs8Ydo

                      (If the method's detection limit was zero, then it would be able to definitely positively confirm---or deny---that photons are indeed massless.)

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_limit
                      Attempting to weigh something that travels at light speed might be a fun project to attempt but is just as much a waste of time as is the hunt for non-existant dark matter.
                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        What do you mean, so what?

                        That is precisely how fast light travels in a vacuum.
                        It doesn't matter how fast light travels in a vacuum.
                        The speed that light travels has no bearing whatsoever on the relationship between E and m, even if some people chose to call c "the speed of light".
                        The speed of light has nothing to do with the mathematical constant c in the formula E=mc2.
                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Contradict yourself much?
                        Nope.
                        Learn to read what is written.

                        _____
                        The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                        ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                          That's interesting. If I've understood, they say that if photons are truly massless, then we ought to be able to show it, and that so far, we can only positively confirm that photons do not possess mass more than the 7×10-17eV figure. They may indeed have zero mass, but we can't prove it definitively.
                          Yeah. That upper limit is a ridiculously small number, so the assumption of zero might be more than justified. I don't know much about the measurement process though.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                            I don't understand what you mean here.
                            Do you know what a Taylor series is?
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              If Maxwell's equations are correct then asking the question is a moot point. The fact that they travel at c is proof that they must be massless.
                              I think this is the key to our disagreement.

                              For those who stick with Einstein, they can use his equations and assumptions and produce useful and very accurate results.

                              However, such success does not prove his assumptions to be a description of reality. There might be a better means of accounting for the relationship between mass and light.

                              For those who reject Einstein, the debate might be over negligible — perhaps even undetectable — differences in value in some cases, but they have the advantage of not being tied to counterintuitive assumptions.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • 20 arguments for God's existence provided by Peter Kreeft.
                                http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-mo...-existence.htm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X