Science and God (One and the same?) » Forum Post by Gh0st

Exactly my point. Every religion believes it's the one, true religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting makeshiftwings,

Quoting the_Peoples_Party, reply 13I know one of the guys that heads Scripps and they believe that man may be contributing to the climate change (which I'm not agruing against) BUT is not the main catalyst or even on the main level.
Yeah, sure you do. Well I know God, and he told me that global warming is man made.

First, why don’t you go here, http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php , and you’ll see that not every scientist believes this is man-made, BUT you’ll just use the illogical response that this is just some right-wing think tank political agenda.

Oh wait you coccydynia, I could just say that global warming is just some left wing fear tactic, but let me continue and show you.

I will continue with a man who is the leading and most eminent climatologist and geologist in his country. In Australia, he’s one of the foremost Earth scientist, Professor Ian Plimer. You most likely never heard of him. He has written a book called Heaven and Earth. Great read with over 400+ pages and with 2311 footnotes (which I could easily use/plagiarize) are the product of his 40 years of in-depth research and entrenched scholarship. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone."

Dr. Plimer says “Much of what we have read about climate change is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive".

Speaking of computer models and the IPCC here is an article, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116, about how they are inaccurate by Dr. Tim Ball who is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Plimer says "It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic."

The Earth’s climate is more dynamically complex than what most calculations done on a supercomputer (which are primitive when compared to that of the Earth's climate). The sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate despite the crucial relationship it has with the Earth (which is why we went through a ‘cold period’ from 40s-70s due to the lack of solar flares from the sun). Oh wait you don’t believe that the Earth went through a cold period during the 70s here’s an article about that: www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf Here’s a quote from that Time's article “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.” Wait a minute that sounds like what is being espoused today!

What does a ‘dumb’ Aussie and Canuck know? Here again is a list of over 31,000 American Scientists (of which over 9,00 have their PhDs) http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php. I am NOT DISPUTING the influx of climate change. I (as well as these other Scientist) am fundamentally disputing most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current cause (being man-made), mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time.

Speaking of atmospheric physicists: William Gray and atmospheric climatologists: Harry von Loon and Dave Melita, signaled in the strongest terms that huge climate changes are afoot. Each weather guru suggested that global warming is part of a cycle that is nearing an end.

Van loon has been outspoken about how “solar storms combined with, or because of these storms, the Earth has been on a relative roller coaster of climate cycles. For the past 250 years global climate highs and lows have followed the broad pattern of low and high solar activity. It was cooler from 1883 to 1928 when there was low solar activity” This is what he was referring to (from the United States Historical Climatology Network dataset 1892-2006 Mean Annual Temperature Time Series):

On top of that Kyoto Protocol would avert only 0.06 C of Global Warming by 2050: So fully implementing it would not have that big of an impact.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Further more,  Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all peer-reviewed papers pertaining to climate change from 2004 to February 2007 (this was published in Energy and Environment) accumulating to a grand total of 528 articles. Only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus view (meaning humans are the cause of global warming) If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. Only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright while the largest category are the neutral papers (48%)

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Finally, Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer Global Warming Alarm Mistaken: http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/physicist-dr-will-happer-global-warming-alarm-mistaken/ “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken, I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."”

Oh yeah what does that neonate know he was only fired by Al Gore and was told by Gore ‘science will not intrude on public policy.’ Besides that ninnyhammer only went to Princeton.

Here are some Harvard guys who work for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: S. Fred Singer and Willie Soon both agree that it is not man-made and very much a political maneuvers.

If this insanity was remotely true then why wouldn’t they have pushed for a greater standard than Kyoto?

On May 31^st 2007 The head of NASA said “he was not sure global warming was a problem and added that it would be ‘arrogant’ to assume the world’s climate should not change in the future.” http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/31200780605.htm Opps that was from abcmoney THEY MUST BE PART OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRATORS and had grand ole tea party, too!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am finished with having a discussion with a complete neonate. You've constantly asked for evidence. Well here you go. Oh yeah you're not going to read any of that because it's all just a bunch of 'right-wing' nut jobs!

I can see that you are chalkful of facts and are the end all be all about G-D and Global warming!

Thanks!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting the_Peoples_Party,

reply 2

First, why don’t you go here, http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php , and you’ll see that not every scientist believes this is man-made, BUT you’ll just use the illogical response that this is just some right-wing think tank political agenda.

Why is it "illogical" to point out that they are right-wing think tanks with political agendas? It's not illogical. You honestly don't see a difference between science academies with oversight who must publish facts and research, and Republican political groups who have no oversight, don't do any scientific research, and are allowed to write whatever they want in their newsletters?

If you can't see the difference between those two groups, you've got a problem.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's illogical, I'm still going to point it out. Yes, the Oregon Petition is right-wing propaganda. It was created by Frederick Seitz, a former employee of R.J. Reynolds, the tobacco company, where he published lots of "independent" scientific research showing that cigarettes don't cause cancer and are actually good for you. The petition itself consisted of mailing postcards to registered Republicans with the following text:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, [sic] 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Then there were checkboxes where you could pick what level of "scientist" you were. The few times the media was able to actually investigate the list, they found a bunch of fake names, duplicate names, and a few scientists, who, when contacted, claimed they never received the postcard and had never signed anything. After that got out, Seitz made the process private and refused to let anyone oversee the signature gathering or to see how he created the list.

Oh wait you coccydynia, I could just say that global warming is just some left wing fear tactic, but let me continue and show you.

If you have some evidence showing that the united opinion of every accredited scientific community in the world is controlled by Democrats in the U.S., you should present it. I'd be very interested in seeing it.

I will continue with a man who is the leading and most eminent climatologist and geologist in his country.

He is a geologist, but he is not a climatologist.

Dr. Plimer says “Much of what we have read about climate change is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive".

I'm sure he does. As I said, yes, there are scientists who think global warming is a huge conspiracy. But these scientists are shown to be frauds by all accredited scientific organizations. Organizations is the key here, because organizations have oversight, and publish in scientific journals, which are peer reviewed. Individuals can write books on whatever they want, with as many lies as they want, and there doesn't have to be any oversight at all. Oversight and review by others are really key elements of science; if you can't see why it's important, I don't know what to tell you.

What does a ‘dumb’ Aussie and Canuck know? Here again is a list of over 31,000 American Scientists (of which over 9,00 have their PhDs) http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php. I am NOT DISPUTING the influx of climate change. I (as well as these other Scientist) am fundamentally disputing most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current cause (being man-made), mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time.

So wait.... you're saying that atmospheric scientists shouldn't be able to research the atmosphere? That the fact that atmospheric research is led by atmospheric scientists is some sort of conspiracy?

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all peer-reviewed papers pertaining to climate change from 2004 to February 2007...

Schulte is actually a plagiarist who cut and pasted nearly his entire article from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who, in turn, is also a plagiarist, and cut and pasted most of his article from a guy named Benny Pieser. Pieser's article, the original, was rejected by Science magazine the first time because it was completely fraudulent. He then redid it, but it turned out that the articles disagreeing with climate change included all articles in non-scientific publications (conspiracy magazines, etc) Finally, after being rejected a third time, condemned publicly, he admitted the article was all lies and stated ""I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous"."

http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/31200780605.htm

Did you even read that article that you pasted? The part where NASA had actually just published a paper confirming anthropogenic global warming, and that their climatology department called him out as "totally clueless" and "a deep anti-global-warming idealogue"? This article isn't supposed to be support for your conspiracy theory; if anything, it should show that the most of this guy's OWN EMPLOYEES are willing to say that he's deeply misled and confused.

I am finished with having a discussion with a complete neonate.

Yeah, refusing to speak or listen is definitely a sign that you must be right.

You've constantly asked for evidence. Well here you go. Oh yeah you're not going to read any of that because it's all just a bunch of 'right-wing' nut jobs!

Are you denying the fact that they're a bunch of right-wing nutjobs? Or are you just saying that right-wing nutjobs' opinions should be as valid as the full consensus of world scientists? It's clear that you didn't actually do any background research on these people you're quoting. Don't you think you should? Shouldn't you be a little suspicious of googling "global warming is fake" and posting the first things that you see, without bothering to look into it at all?

The entire concept of ACTUAL science relies on experimenting, researching, and having those experiments and research verified and reviewed by others. If you don't have that review process, it's not science, because you can just make up whatever you want and post it on your blog. If you do go through the review process, and every accredited scientific organization in the entire world tells you that your experiment is a fraud, don't you find that even a tiny bit suspicious? Not even a little?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Exactly my point. Every religion believes it's the one, true religion.

That's simply not true.

How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you look at one religion (probably your own) and extrapolate to every other religion out there?

In fact, I do not remember a religion outside Christianity that makes such a claim.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Does anybody really believe that a treaty that allows India and China to pollute as much as they want will do much to protect the environment and that opposition against such a treaty is proof of ignorance?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 7

Does anybody really believe that a treaty that allows India and China to pollute as much as they want will do much to protect the environment and that opposition against such a treaty is proof of ignorance?

Whether or not a treaty lets developing countries pollute has NOTHING to do with whether or not global warming is real. Skeptics need to be able to separate the two. "It's not fair that India's carbon cap is less than mine, therefore, all of the research on global warming is fake" doesn't make much sense. The two are unrelated. Science doesn't say anything like "Global warming is caused by man but not by India and China." The science says that carbon emissions, from everywhere, are causing it. Politicians are the ones who decide how to enforce reducing carbon emissions in their countries. Nothing in the science of global warming gives India a free ride; that's entirely a political choice.

It's very possible to believe that global warming is real, to believe that there's no massive conspiracy, and yet still vote against whatever treaty you don't like. There are, thankfully, a few Repbulicans who do this. I don't agree with their "let someone else deal with it" attitude, but I can at least appreciate that they're not trying to deny science or claim that there are massive conspiracies when they vote against environmental protection laws.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Whether or not a treaty lets developing countries pollute has NOTHING to do with whether or not global warming is real.

No, and whether or not global warming is real has nothing to do with whether humanity caused it or not or whether we have little or much influence on the climate either way.

The only safe part of this is that a treaty that allows the worst offenders (the cities at the Chinese coast) to pollute as much as they want to does NOT help AT ALL, regardless of whether global warming is real or not and whether global warming is caused by humanity or not.

I personally believe that global warming is real just like global cooling is real. Both happen occasionally, depending on what the sun does. I don't believe that humanity has much of an influence (less than a single volcano anyway). But I know that allowing Chinese cities to pollute as much as they want and signing a treaty to that effect is foolish and doesn't do anything good for the climate.

If global warming is real and caused by humanity, the Kyoto treaty will make it worse.

And if global warming activists don't see that, I cannot blame global warming critics for thinking that the whole issue is a scam.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 9

No, and whether or not global warming is real has nothing to do with whether humanity caused it or not or whether we have little or much influence on the climate either way.

Yeah, yeah, i keep forgetting that global warming denialists are switching over to saying it's real but it's not our fault. I meant to say anthropogenic global warming. My post would still be exactly the same. The science makes it very plain that global warming is both real AND caused by man; this is what the scientists prove, and the policy on which countries need to cap when is a totally different issue.

The only safe part of this is that a treaty that allows the worst offenders (the cities at the Chinese coast) to pollute as much as they want to does NOT help AT ALL, regardless of whether global warming is real or not and whether global warming is caused by humanity or not.

I don't know if I should bother arguing with you about this, because my main point is that even if that were true, it has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real. SCIENTISTS prove that anthropogenic global warming is real; POLITICIANS decide what to do about it. Don't mix the two groups up. If you've got a grudge against China and want to vote whatever you want about it, you are allowed to do that. You can argue that Kyoto's unfair without needing to also deny science and make grand claims of a massive world conspiracy.

That said, I'll point this out anyway: China just recently edged out the U.S. as worst offender. When Kyoto was written, it didn't. Before 2008, the U.S. was much worse than China. Per capita, the U.S. still surpasses everyone, including China, in the amount of pollution we create. Developed countries, in general, have released much more CO2 and continue to still. The adopters of Kyoto (nearly all the developed countries except the U.S.) are reducing their emissions, so now the numbers will look different. Kyoto lasts for 2 more years, and the plan is (and was) that China would have that long to try to pull its economy together, and will then be re-examined in 2010. When Kyoto was created, China's emissions were lower, and it was decided that developing countries would get a longer grace period to change their infrastructure because their economies are fragile and forcing them to dismantle their power and productions facilities when they can't afford replacements would likely destroy them.

Now, you are free to disagree with that stance; you can say that it's only fair that if developed countries need to start reducing pollution, that still-developing countries need to stop too even if it kills them. Or you can argue that it's unfair that some countries get a grace period, so we shouldn't have to obey any laws at all. However, these things are SEPARATE from the fact that anthropogenic global warming is real. You might have a point if the science was saying something like "Global warming comes from carbon emissions in the U.S., but carbon emissions in China are actually good for the environment." But it doesn't say anything like that. ALL carbon emissions are bad, but the politicians decided to give China a few extra years. I don't know if I can make this difference clearer. I think most conspiracy theorists just want to ignore that so they can get on with their conspiracies.

If global warming is real and caused by humanity, the Kyoto treaty will make it worse.

That's just stupid. China was allowed to pollute as much as it wanted before Kyoto. Almost everyone could pollute as much as they wanted before Kyoto. Kyoto is there to stop that. Kyoto didn't let China pollute "more" than it already could. There were no laws regulating carbon emissions in China, and Kyoto didn't change that. Kyoto only placed new restrictions on the developed countries of the world (except the U.S.) and that is exactly its purpose. It didn't get rid of old restrictions on China or India: there were no old restrictions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That said, I'll point this out anyway: China just recently edged out the U.S. as worst offender. When Kyoto was written, it didn't.

I didn't say "China", I said "Chinese cities at the coast". It's easy for a country to keep pollution levels low if 90% of the population do not live in industrialised regions but in dirt-poor rural areas.

I have never been in China but I hear that the smog in Chinese coastal cities is absolutely *ridiculous*.

It is THAT type of pollution that the Kyoto treaty has confirmed as acceptable, and that's a stupid way to try to protect the environment whichever way you put it.

That's just stupid. China was allowed to pollute as much as it wanted before Kyoto.

And was it useful to put that in writing?

The science makes it very plain that global warming is both real AND caused by man;

Yeah, I don't believe it.

For the last two years the average temperatures have gone down, not up.

I am not entirely ignorant of the science, but since I disagree with you you will probably claim that I am. But I understand global warming also happens on other planets in our solar system at the moment, which suggests that the sun (probably) has a much bigger effect than humanity.

Whether humanity's part in this is of relevance is perhaps the important question; and I haven't seen any evidence that it is. (I have seen numbers that CLAIM such, but always without a means of comparison to numbers showing the influence of the sun.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

LULA POSTS #137

The first evidence for God's existence is from casuality (which has already been averred to in this thread, (watch and watchmaker). Anyway, the universe, limited in all its details, could not be its own cause. It couldn't come together with all its regulation laws any more that the bridges could just happen or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clock-maker.

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS #139

As has already been said in this thread: A) Actually, yes, it could come together on its own. Just saying it can't doesn't make it true.

Do you really believe that the universe and all its regulating laws came together ON ITS OWN? What did it come from?

The reason why there is no way the universe came into existence upon its own comes from the principle that the greater cannot come from the less; rather the less must always come from the greater..the Greater in this case is Almighty God. On this St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the proof is from motion. Everything that is moved is moved by something else. But no series of movers and things moved can explain anything unless there is a First Mover which moves everything else but is not "Himself" moved becasue He is the Source of all movement.

So, when we were told the universe began with the expansion of a primeval atom, we must then ask, what made it expand? If we ascribe this movement to an earlier movement, we must ask the same question about the earlier movement, until we come to a Prime Mover, not Himself moved---the one true God.

This brings us back to causality. One thing is caused by another, but for the same reason as above, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes unless there is a First Cause which does not need to be caused because He always was, is and ever will be.

As has already been said, if complicated things have to be made by someone, and God is complicated (he certainly sounds like he is), then someone must have made God, and someone else must have made that person, etc. (The watchmaker-maker-maker-maker-maker...)

What follows the word "then" is not rational. I say the universe is obviously created and that what is created supposes a Creator who is uncreated, or the problem goes on forever, the whole endless chain of dependent things is not able to explain itself as each of it links. It is rational to argue, however, to an uncreated watchmaker. It is not rational to ask who created this uncreated watchmaker.

God was not created. If He were He would be a creature and would have a creator. His creator would then be God and not He Himself. God never began and will never cease to be...God is Eternal. There was never a time when He did not exist. If there had been, then neither He nor anything else would ever come into existence since there would have been nothing to create anything. Likewise, God will always exist.

God is the One Being Who could not possibly not exist. He is Infinite and explanation of all else. And there is no need to be troubled by this as we humans are constantly learning and don't know all the answers to our existence at least on this side of Heaven.

Successfully updated karma reason!

double post

Successfully updated karma reason!

triple post!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 13

The reason why there is no way the universe came into existence upon its own comes from the principle that the greater cannot come from the less; rather the less must always come from the greater..the Greater in this case is Almighty God.

Look at your statement. Tell me where god came from, keeping in mind your thesis that the greater cannot come from the less.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 11

It is THAT type of pollution that the Kyoto treaty has confirmed as acceptable, and that's a stupid way to try to protect the environment whichever way you put it.

Kyoto doesn't say their pollution is acceptable. It says that it is unacceptable, but that China would be allowed an extra few years as a grace period to fix it because its economy was crap, it doesn't have easy access to new technology like first world countries, and shutting down their only power plants and factories would probably have caused the nation to fall apart. The U.S., on the other hand, has (or at least had) plenty of money, easy access to technology, and one of the best infrastructures in place for upgrading their factories. The U.S. didn't want to, because it would cut into short-term profits, but that's not the same thing as risking the collapse of your national infrastructure as is the case with third world and still-developing countries.

The Kyoto agreement was basically an agreement that global warming is a global problem, and that the nations with all the power, money, and technology, were going to have to be the ones driving the change, and poorer nations would be brought in later.

As I said, it's fine if you disagree with that, but it has nothing to do with the scientific fact of global warming.

And was it useful to put that in writing?

Yes, of course. Because if Kyoto had included demands that would have destroyed developing nations and left hundreds of thousands of people in poverty like you seem to want, it never would have been approved by most countries.

Yeah, I don't believe it.

For the last two years the average temperatures have gone down, not up.

And that alone is enough for you to believe that every science institute in every nation in the entire world is involved in a massive conspiracy controlled by the Chinese? Seriously? You are willing to ignore all of the data, and the opinion of every accredited organization in the world, because things get slightly cooler some times? The graph goes up and down; it doesn't have to go straight up to show a warming trend; it just has to be constantly trending upwards. 2008 was cooler than 2007, but that doesn't change the fact that the 10 hottest years that have been recorded since decent record-keeping came about in the 1880's have ALL happened in the last 12 years. It's getting hotter. All the data is showing that. A slightly cooler summer one year doesn't mean it's suddenly reversed itself. And besides... didn't you JUST SAY that you agreed that global warming was real, and now you're claiming that it's not? I thought your only disagreement was that you think we're not responsible. Now you ARE saying that you think it's not even really happening?

I am not entirely ignorant of the science, but since I disagree with you you will probably claim that I am.

Well, you apparently didn't know that it's been getting hotter over the last fifty years, which is sort of step one. I'd tend towards saying you're willfully ignorant because you don't seem to want to read any science from actual scientific pages. How about:

Joint National Academies of Science: http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

NASA: http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/

American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/top%20issues/climate%26energy_index.shtml

IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

Or, seriously, any actual accredited scientific body that is peer-reviewed and has published in actual scientific journals.

Instead, you're getting all your info by (apparently) googling "global warming hoax" and parroting the first thing you read. It's important to remember that the internet is a crazy place, where anyone can make a web page on anything they want. Half of what isn't porn is lies. You can't blindly trust information on a random page just because it sounds nice. This goes doubly for right-wing anti-science propaganda sites.

But I understand global warming also happens on other planets in our solar system at the moment, which suggests that the sun (probably) has a much bigger effect than humanity.

Why not read NASA's own reasoning for the warming on Mars, since they're the ones who discovered it, and the only ones who have actually researched it?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

Whether humanity's part in this is of relevance is perhaps the important question; and I haven't seen any evidence that it is. (I have seen numbers that CLAIM such, but always without a means of comparison to numbers showing the influence of the sun.)

Here you go, straight from Stanford's solar research group: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

Or you could read about NASA's study: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

How about the World Radiation Center saying that solar radiation hasn't increased noticably at all since 1978, yet we've had the fastest increase in temperature ever in these last years: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

The Max Planck institute has tried to get records going even further back, to 1940, and even then, they show there has been no increase in solar radiation, yet a huge increase in temperature: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

What more do you want?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 14

Do you really believe that the universe and all its regulating laws came together ON ITS OWN? What did it come from?

Yes. It came from the Big Bang.

The reason why there is no way the universe came into existence upon its own comes from the principle that the greater cannot come from the less; rather the less must always come from the greater

But that's not an actual "principle" or law of some kind. It's just something Thomas Aquinas made up. Despite the intentional vagueness of "great" and "less", I'd say greater comes from lesser all the time: a human being comes from a fertilized egg, the mona lisa came from some paper and paint, supercomputers come from sand and metal.

Plus, as Coelocanth pointed out for like the ninth time in this thread, you can't say "Everything has to come from something" and "God didn't come from something" without a contradiction.

unless there is a First Mover which moves everything else but is not "Himself" moved becasue He is the Source of all movement.

The first mover is the Big Bang. Why does the first mover have to be a giant invisible Republican wizard?

until we come to a Prime Mover, not Himself moved---the one true God.

This brings us back to causality. etc etc

Yeah, I've read all of Aquinas's arguments way back in Philosophy 101, where we talked about how they're all logical fallacies for exactly what we keep pointing out: "Everything has to be X" and then "God doesn't have to be X". You can't keep using those two things together, because they are contradictions. If everything is X, then God must be X. If God isn't X, then it isn't true that everything is X.

Let me summarize: Aquinas's arguments have two main failings:

1) His premises (everything must have been created by something greater, everything must have been moved by something bigger, etc) are not actual scientific laws of any kind (though there are some similarities). They're just things he made up. They might sound intuitively nice, but you can't just base an argument on them as if they were known truths.

2) The followup statement to each of those premises (god wasn't made by something greater, god wasn't moved by something else, etc) all contradict the premise. In logic, this means the argument is a fallacy. Either the premise or the conclusion must be FALSE.

It bothers me that people try to claim that they're using logic when they repeat these arguments, but then when you point out the flaw, they basically say "Well, god is magic!" You can't use magic or holiness or mystical babble to avoid logic. If you want to go off about magic and mysticism and how things can be true even if they're false, then that's fine, but don't pretend it's a logical argument.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm having a difficult time posting tonight...I can't get past page 8 and post #180 if I open by the Forums and My Replies.

I keep getting that the website wants to run an add on, and that I should click on it....

I'm also unable to edit or delete comments #188 and 189.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do you really believe that the universe and all its regulating laws came together ON ITS OWN? What did it come from?

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS:
Yes. It came from the Big Bang.

Really...."Cosmic", "chemical", "stellar" evolution? The Big Bang has come in and out of vogue...the politicians of science produced a masterpiece of guessing and the cosmologists fabricated theories from it....those who believe must believe by faith.

Stellar evolution is based upon the premise that nothing can explode and produce all the stars, planets, moons, .....all that's in the universe. Nothing + nothing = 2 elements plus time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

Real scientists have given up on this far fetched unscientific and unworkable fantasy long ago, while evolutonists refuse to abandon it.

Although it's not scientific and was never meant to be, I prefer Genesis' explanation of the origin of the universe and all that's in it. "In the beginning" God spoke and there was a large amount of energy. But what is energy? We know it's forms but not what it is. What are the properties and laws governing energy confined in the interior of stars...that's something I venture we'll never know.

But what do we know...."In the beginning", there first appeared light..the first representative of matter just as Genesis 1:3 says, "And God said, Let there be light; and there was light."

Successfully updated karma reason!

CobraA1

Join Date 09/2006

+26

Yes. It came from the Big Bang.

At least it has a name.

Why does the first mover have to be a giant invisible Republican wizard?

Why does the first mover have to be a Democratic blob of nothingness?

I'm not exactly seeing solid arguments around here.

Successfully updated karma reason!

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS #192

Plus, as Coelocanth pointed out for like the ninth time in this thread, you can't say "Everything has to come from something" and "God didn't come from something" without a contradiction.

It bothers me that people try to claim that they're using logic when they repeat these arguments, but then when you point out the flaw, they basically say "Well, god is magic!" You can't use magic or holiness or mystical babble to avoid logic. If you want to go off about magic and mysticism and how things can be true even if they're false, then that's fine, but don't pretend it's a logical argument.

It's not logic, but reason and right reason from which I make my argument for the existence of God as Maker of all Creation.

God the First Cause...right reasoning asserts every effect has a cause.

Primary, secondary and extended effects relate back to the First Cause.

Fire, energy, Mist, Time, Force, Matter, or a tree branch, and you and me are all effects of one First Cause.

The universe or Cosmos presupposes a cause a Being necessarily outside the thing produced. All creation stands in contrast to the Cause of its production; one produced; the other unproduced. This uncreated Cause, this Being having no cause, no beginning...Christians call God.

The Eternal Creator is necessarily sovereign Lord and Master over all created things and beings. Since no thing possesses a quality not found in its cause, the supreme qualities in nature are the manifestations of the qualities of the Creator of nature.

Order, beauty and harmony in nature evidences design, intention and intelligence of God.

So, God is the Supreme Self Existent Spirit who designed, created and rules the universe and all that's in it. God is Eternal, Unchangeable and Omnipresent.

Right reason sustains belief in God. By logically going from effect to cause, the human mind finally comes to the first Cause--God. The unchanging phenomena of the material universe is a single great effect which must have emanated from an efficient cause, an uncaused Cause.

The universe can only be seen, intellectually, by being placed in contrast to that which does not change, it's Cause. We know rationally that this First Cause is not merely equal but superior to all the effects which flow from all natural causes taken together. The First and Ultimate Cause must have personality, intelligence and free will since we ourselves whom God created have intelligence and free will. While this First Cause is responsible for our existence, He is not the cause of our free will acts.

It bothers me that people try to claim that they're using logic when they repeat these arguments, but then when you point out the flaw, they basically say "Well, god is magic!" You can't use magic or holiness or mystical babble to avoid logic. If you want to go off about magic and mysticism and how things can be true even if they're false, then that's fine, but don't pretend it's a logical argument.

You'll never hear from me that Our Lord God is magic....mystery yes, but not total mystery for He's given us enough knowledge of Himself to live a remarkable life to run the race and travel to the edge of the world and beyond off into the darkness.

This is where we begin to live, to really live through the eyes of God. We begin to understand that we weren't made to pave out life behind the walls of nature, but to walk through this life into the arms of God on a raod that nature could never build. In our life we must face a hard rock of reality, a truth that does not bend to whims or fantasy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

CobraA1

Join Date 09/2006

+26

you can't say "Everything has to come from something" and "God didn't come from something" without a contradiction.

How about this:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.
God does not have a beginning, therefore god does not need a cause.

Successfully updated karma reason!

While God has not perhaps, “Imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God”, for some people have quite obviously no idea of God, and some worse than none, he has left us with a great witness to his existence in the form of our own existence: so long as we have our selves, and know we have our selves, we also know that there is a God. I think it is beyond explaining our knowledge of self-existence. I will leave it with Descartes’ famous phrase, “cogito, ergo sum”, meaning “I think, therefore, I am.” If someone truly claims to be unsure of his own existence (I say “claims”, because this is really impossible), I have little to say to him until hunger or some other of his appetites convinces him otherwise. Further, we know intuitively that nothing can no more produce something than it can be congruent to a right angle. Without accepting this, no theorem of Euclid (or for that matter of Gauss, since he seems to be more correct than Euclid), can stand. We therefore see that Something has existed from eternity, as all things which were not existent from eternity began, and in order to have begun, they need a begin-ner. Further, because everything that is in those things which have not been around forever are derived from that Thing which has, It is the source of all powers, and therefore, all-powerful. The idea that senseless matter could produce thought is absurd, and those atheists who claim to still believe in free will are really just ignoring the obvious outcomes of their own ideas, so we know that whatever this “Thing” is which is eternal, is also a thinking, knowing being. Further, all things having come from Him, this “Thing” must know all that there is to know about them, and thus is omniscient. So to sum up, “If we suppose that nothing is first or eternal, matter can never begin to be. If we suppose motionless matter to be first or eternal, motion can never begin to be. If we suppose matter and motion to be first or eternal, thought can never begin to be.” –John Locke

Successfully updated karma reason!

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

^^^ Not necessarily true. But it's just stating a premise, so as far as logic goes, it's fine.

The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.

^^^ Would be true if the first one is true, so this line is ok.

God does not have a beginning, therefore god does not need a cause.

^^^ Doesn't work for two reasons. First the logic problem: "All A are B" does not imply "All not A are all not B" In other words, "Everything that is a bird must have wings" does not imply "Bats aren't birds, so bats don't need to have wings".

The second issue is that "God does not have a beginning" isn't necessarily true, especially since it's allegedly impossible to know anything at all about God. I'd maybe say this is its own internal contradiction; "It's impossible to know with certainty anything about God" and "We know with certainty that God didn't have a beginning".

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

I didn't read everything, way too many pages, and I'm not worried about what the conversation turned into. I' not trying to prove or disprove God. If this has already been said sorry. I'm just adressing the OP.

If you take the perspective of pagan religions with tons of gods and godesses that represent different parts of nature you are right.

With today's monotheistic religions that isn't true. In today's world science has replaced those pagan religions of trying to explain how things work, while Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. are trying to explain why things work. So science asks, "What are the processes?" Today's monnotheistic religions ask, "Why are there processes?" In language it is a relatively minor difference, but it converts into a huge difference when you delve deeper into each side.

Successfully updated karma reason!