LuftWaffle Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2014 If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit. and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics. so you trow away quantumphysics however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics. so i suggest you trow away your computer too then... This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course. Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating. Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation. It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer. If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows: Shiloh denies the big bang. The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics. Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics. Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer. See the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2014 quantumphysics has mathematical and physical (observated) proof that something can appear from nothing in the quantumfog. This is something we hear quite often, but the problem here is that when physicists use the word "nothing" they don't means nothing, they mean something, and that something IS the quantum fog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 17, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) This is something we hear quite often, but the problem here is that when physicists use the word "nothing" they don't means nothing, they mean something, and that something IS the quantum fog. The quantum fog is used as a describtion of a size. Everywhere, but on a very very very small length. The thing i described is quantum fluctuation: In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small values of t (time). This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs. Edited June 17, 2014 by Schouwenaars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 17, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 17, 2014 If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit. and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics. so you trow away quantumphysics however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics. so i suggest you trow away your computer too then... This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course. Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating. Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation. It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer. If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows: Shiloh denies the big bang. The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics. Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics. Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer. See the problem? I understand what you try to say. You're right in a certain way, but a computer really works because quantum theories also. Like: why do elektrons (elektricity in pc) always takes the shortest way without having been there before? And please make it more clear, because i still don't really see the main problem. Quantum theories describe the operation of the quantum. The quantum makes his computer work. The theories appear (tested and proved) to be quite correct. The quite correct theories describe the big bang. I don't see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted June 18, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2014 This is something we hear quite often, but the problem here is that when physicists use the word "nothing" they don't means nothing, they mean something, and that something IS the quantum fog. The quantum fog is used as a describtion of a size. Everywhere, but on a very very very small length. The thing i described is quantum fluctuation: In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small values of t (time). This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs. I thought you were referring to QVF. The quantum vacuum isn't nothing in the sense of "Not any thing". It's a highly energised state and as such it's inaccurate to say that particles come from nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted June 18, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2014 If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit. and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics. so you trow away quantumphysics however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics. so i suggest you trow away your computer too then... This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course. Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating. Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation. It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer. If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows: Shiloh denies the big bang. The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics. Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics. Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer. See the problem? I understand what you try to say. You're right in a certain way, but a computer really works because quantum theories also. No, computers do not work because of man's theories and speculations about the physical world, they work because of the operation of physics. Nature doesn't rely on our theories, instead our theories are merely attempts at explaining what nature already does. Your argument doesn't even work from a computer design aspect. A degree in quantum cosmology is most definitely not a prerequisite for studying electronic engineering and going on to design and build computers. So in every practical sense, neither big bang theory nor it's encompassing scientific field has contributed anything to the existence and operation of Shiloh's computer. Use of a computer, thus, doesn't require belief in any of the theories of quantum cosmology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 19, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This is something we hear quite often, but the problem here is that when physicists use the word "nothing" they don't means nothing, they mean something, and that something IS the quantum fog. The quantum fog is used as a describtion of a size. Everywhere, but on a very very very small length. The thing i described is quantum fluctuation: In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small values of t (time). This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs. I thought you were referring to QVF. The quantum vacuum isn't nothing in the sense of "Not any thing". It's a highly energised state and as such it's inaccurate to say that particles come from nothing. I thought the post you quoted explained that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 19, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 19, 2014 If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit. and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics. so you trow away quantumphysics however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics. so i suggest you trow away your computer too then... This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course. Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating. Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation. It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer. If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows: Shiloh denies the big bang. The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics. Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics. Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer. See the problem? I understand what you try to say. You're right in a certain way, but a computer really works because quantum theories also. No, computers do not work because of man's theories and speculations about the physical world, they work because of the operation of physics. Nature doesn't rely on our theories, instead our theories are merely attempts at explaining what nature already does. Your argument doesn't even work from a computer design aspect. A degree in quantum cosmology is most definitely not a prerequisite for studying electronic engineering and going on to design and build computers. So in every practical sense, neither big bang theory nor it's encompassing scientific field has contributed anything to the existence and operation of Shiloh's computer. Use of a computer, thus, doesn't require belief in any of the theories of quantum cosmology. I explained this in my previous post, before yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted June 20, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted June 20, 2014 No, computers do not work because of man's theories and speculations about the physical world, they work because of the operation of physics. Nature doesn't rely on our theories, instead our theories are merely attempts at explaining what nature already does. ~ Beloved, I Don't Know This goddess "Nature" That You Speak So Highly Of And I Can't Find Her, Neither In My Science Books Nor In God's Big Book Of Jesus Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21 So I Think You Would Be Wiser If You Were To Express Physical Reality By Using Rational Words Such As: Creation Doesn't Rely On Our Theories, Instead Our Theories Are Merely Lame Attempts At Explaining What Creation Already Is And Does. Note: See The Holy Bible To Uncover The Massive Failure Of Science To Correctly Model Both Creation History And The Coming End Times Events And To Explain The Affects Of Sin Upon Mankind And Creation And To Predict The Redemptive Power Of The Blood Of Christ Upon The Souls Of Believers. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 Love, Joe Hi Fresno, the quote you're attributing to Schouwenaars is actually by me. He was merely quoting me in his response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Hi Fresno, the quote you're attributing to Schouwenaars is actually by me. He was merely quoting me in his response. Sorry~! It Is Removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts