Lost_Soul
-
Posts
356 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lost_Soul
-
-
I wish I could go.... ;__; But alas, I am so busy. >.< Maybe in the near future I hope, when I have money and a costume and can go the distance. XD; Have fun and good luck squall~! :3 Tell us all about it when you get back from it so that I can relive your memory in my mind as if I was really there! lol XD
-
Well I have some good news... uhm... I am helping a friend of mine go through her depression and so far, she is doing ok. It's been difficult and yes, stressful but it has brought us closer together. :3 Since I know all the tricks a depressed person will throw, I knew how to get around that to get to her and still be close friends. So I guess... having to suffer depression wasn't fruitless but helpful for me to help another person out who is dealing with it and I am happy to have helped her and hopefully others in the future. Still not taking any meds and my depression is under control somewhat but enough that I can help someone and do the daily things in my life. I am moving out of this god forsaken town finally! And moving into a home of my own, which could be the reason of me not being depressed. Anyways... I hope this post I made can be a place for anyone who is depressed to come here and vent or even talk, because it's nice to talk and maybe me or someone on this site can help and give you comfort. I hope things go well for her (my friend) and me and everyone else on here too in the future! PEACE! :3
-
I asked you who this uncle was that you mentioned to have in your past life and YOU said General Meade. Okay, if that is the case then if I remember correctly and there is proof in what I am going to say is... General Meade never started out as a general when the Civil War broke out and was a Captain most of the war and earned his rank as a general later on. He also was already apart of the Volunteer in which he volunteered to join the war, not because he HAD to go as you state. I don't know how this has to do with anything Agaib has this post to be about the proof of God but I thought I say this in case you are unaware of this very fact about General Meade.I was thinking about something, and it might be a good new topic. I was talking to someone about reincarnation and famous people. This person said everyone gets to be a famous person because we should all share the limelight.My response to that was, we are all created for a purpose, and those souls that are in the histpry books are the ones who had the balls to do what needed to be done regardless of the difficuly and danger. I think that there are a few souls that are charged with these important things. I don't think the average person has it in them to lead a revolution. That isn't a bad thing. We are all made to fill certain roles.
Here's an example I can use of one of my memories. Say you're a dirt poor farmer's son in the mid 1800's, and as you reach puberty you realize that you're gay. You find a boyfriend somehow and sneak around. His brother catches you, and the guy you thought you loved betrays you and tells his brother you raped him to save his own skin.
You don't know about the betrayel right away. You go home and your dad confronts you about a rumor he heard in town. First you deny it, but then your concience gets to you and you confess everything. Strangely enough your parents are angry, but mostly because you lied to them.
While your father is yelling at you for being a lying ungreatful brat, your mother spots a group of young men. You know they're coming for you. Your father picks you up, throws you in a closet, and locks the door. He sends your little brother upstairs to hide. Then your parents tell the men that you aren't home. They don't believe them and slowly torture them to death to draw you out. Ironically, you're banging on the closet door and screaming, but no one can hear you over your parents' screams.
When your parents are dead and the men leave, your brother comes down from his hiding place and lets you out of the closet. Next you do the only think you can do, you go to your uncle's. He takes you in and takes care of you.
Then civil war breaks out. Your uncle is a geneal in the army and has to go. You go with him when the army holds a sign up, and you get to talking to a recruiter. You're not a fighter, but this man tells you there are other jobs you could do. So you decide to sign up as a nurse so you can earn some money and take care of your brother.
So, you're in the army. Your uncle isn't happy with you because he doesn't want you caught up in a war and put in harm's way, but he makes sure you're put in his regimen so he can at least keep an eye on you. But your reputation proceeds you. A few of your commrades have heard about what you supposedly did, and when your uncle's back is turned they beat you up.
The day of your first battle comes. The surgeon has trained you and the other nurses as best as he thought he could (though he is of the opinion that he is god's gift to the universe and you're an incompetant idiot). The fighting starts. You're trying to do your job with cannons going off, and the occasional bullet wizzing through the front lines and piercing your hospital tent.
While running for bandages, you see a soldier on the battlefield go down. He's right on the front line where all the gunfire is. He also happens to be one of the men who helped beat you up. What would you do....?
"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Captain Meade offered his services to Pennsylvania and was appointed as a brigadier general of volunteers. Like many American families during the Civil War, Meade's was also touched personally by sectional strife. His wife's sister was married to Governor Wise of Virginia who later became a brigadier general in the Confederate army." from General Meade's Biography, (taken from the U.S. governmental site) third paragraph down.
I rest my case....
-
Aaaaww~ ;__;OH, zipper and zucchini don't count! -
Interesting... Though I use an online dictionary and thesaurus to help me with the sexual words and such...
I don't mind coming here to help others with such words and phrases as well with mine. ;3 -
5th chapter up! Will be taking a break, since I will be busy here. >.> It might take me another month to update the 6th chapter, if not, hopefully, not... -__- Then it will be posted soon than I anticipate. ^__^ Enjoy~! <3
-
Here's a fic a did a little while back that one of my readers requested me to do, but I have yet to get one review for it. It's the only story I have on this site that doesn't have even 1 review. It's a CloudXYuffie one shot. Personally, I don't even like this particular pairing, but I wrote it to please my reader. Go figure. Link http://ff.adult-fanfiction.org/story.php?no=600070124 I tend to only read and write Final Fantasy 7 and 8 stuff, plus Advent Children. Resident Evil is cool too. I don't really read anything else. So if any of you have a FF or RE story you want me to read, cool.
I instead, read your story in the anime section under Death Note. The story I read was 'Chained Heart'. You already know I am a Death Note fan. >.>;
My review: I like how you have the story so far. I would like it if you put more detail into the plot on the hunt for Kira and as well L's thoughts on the whole matter of being with Light who he still suspects to be Kira. He does that a lot throughout part of the series and you don't really show him thinking that very much or state it much. I know you do once or twice, but not enough as would L have done it. Don't get me wrong, I still like the story so don't think I am flaming you for this, lol XD; There is also a lot of smut in it... >.> which seems kind of weird for the two, but that doesn't mean I don't like it cause I do! X3 I guess I am one of those people who aren't in it for the sex when it come to reading a fan fic... yes, I know... I am weird... -__- But I do enjoy reading one that do have it in there. Anywho, I like it so far and wonder how you will end it. Have you watched the whole series or are you only following along to what is shown on tv? Here's the Death Note series in case you haven't and want to watch the whole thing to help you out with your story.
I must warn you that it is subtitled in english. o.o Well I hope I was of help with my review! :3 I hope you read my story~! X3My vote: +++
-
XD; I think you are the first fluent Japanese speaking person in here. o.o; Well... Kononnichiwa~! <3 :3 I don't think I can be of any help because my Japanese is a little rusty as well as I am not a native from there... >.>; ...Gomen nasai... -__-;
If you speak English and can type it, I do believe I can help and be one step closer to a friendship!
Anyways, see you around AFF forums and welcome to our yancha spot~! ;3 -
O.O! This is an awesome idea! XD Why didn't I find this sooner!? >_<;
My story is a WIP. But I have 5 chapters up so far, welll, I will have the 5th chapter updated here soon, need to have it go through my beta and then me again. -__-; I hope people likes it!
Whoever reviews I will read a story of theirs they want me to read and review it as well! Thanks!Lost Soul
-
Guilty! ;__; Noooo~! Xo
-
^Banned for banning me for not recently continuing the madness... >.>; sorry about that, been so busy lately... ^^; I have continued the madness! X3
-
I have 1-4 chapters up!
Working on the 5th one... >_>; -
I actually think the title 'The Asylum' fits fine. I dont see it as cliched. I mean, thats where it takes place right? I also think you should keep the reader in the dark. Asylum seems to be a mystery type and not many people knows what goes on in those places... believe me o.o
I think it would be better that way. I have my story where the reader is left in the dark and keeps you guessing, with plot twists added here and there. >3 just to throw the reader off. ^^ It makes the story more interesting and brings the reader back for more! and will also beg you to write more... >.> But it makes for a good story in my opinion. I cant stand it when an author throws everything on the table, then it doesnt make the story any interesting and I lose interest. I mean... it wont give the reader much reason to read the story if everything is put forth in the beginning and not give any little room for thinking for the reader as to guessing and trying to figure out what is going on in the plot you know. Anyways, thats just my thought on it, but do whatever you think would work better for you and please ya. If you want, you can read my story and get an idea on what I am talking about. I have a link below, the story is called 'A Devil's Heart' ^^ But I am interested in yours to get a feeling for it and see how you did. Good Luck! ;3
-
XD you know, to solve your guy's problem, just freakin DROP comcast and go get DSL or some other internet connection company. o.o Don't get Joink >.> I use verizon and/or time warner. ^^ I haven't hardly got much trouble from them and they aren't a bitch about charging you unfairly. Hell, when I didn't have a week of internet, I called time warner up and complained, they helped me through the phone and gave me tips that I needed to try, and if that didn't work, sent someone out to give me help and it went well. Everyone was nice. ^^ That's just my advice... >.>
-
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I am the youngest! XP 21! Take that! WOO~! B) ::goes off to drink:: X3 I am LORD of... uh... >.>;
<.<;
o.o*
...of YOUTH! ...yeah~ >D heh heh heh where are my 300 virgins~!?
jk jk XD; Anyways... HAPPY BIRTHDAY to the other 4!
-
Even if that were true, then refuting things that are not evolution has no bearing on evolution's implications. But it isn't true, since evolution, real evolution, is silent on the existence of God. So refuting evolution has no implications on god's reality.
Behe, who came up with Irreducible Complexity, fully accepted evolution as the source of change in life and the diversity of life on the planet. BUT he felt that some aspects of life were not possible without a God. So, he felt that evolution and God were both true.
A poll showed that 95% of all scientists in the country accept evolution. About 50% of them feel it is a fully natural process, needing no deity. Some 45% feel that it's part of God's plan. Five percent reject evolution. All of them do so for religious reasons.
Your 'implications' of evolution and god being diametrically opposed are strawmen. Nearly half of all American scientists find no problem accepting God and the Theory of Evolution.
It's a common creationist claim, that they're using real science but real scientists aren't. But if your 'real science' is based on something that evolution isn't, not really, then it's rather wrong. As well dismiss evolution because it doesn't explain Bohr's model of the atom.
That is an argument ad homenim(sp?) and as such is not valid in any debate.
Since you don’t seem to get how much evidence of God there is (evolution was just to prove that science makes mistakes and big ones) even though you cannot refute any of my other points, I am going to go ahead and show some more evidence that proves my point.
Okay, here it is... all compiled into one mega-post.
The Anthropic Principles point out that there are over one hundred variables to this Universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. Either this Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible, or there have to be googolplexes of Universes. If there are that many Universes, then the chances of a Being Like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could, of course call such a Being something other than "God." But if it quacks like a Cosmic Duck and waddles like a Cosmic Duck and builds little universe nests that produce baby Cosmic Ducklings, why not call it a Cosmic Duck?
To name just a few of the finely tuned variables that are mentioned in the books, "God the Evidence," by Patrick Glynn, John Leslie, in Universes" and from George Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."
Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been merely 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster. Leslie, page 5.
The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example). Leslie, page 24. Leslie got this information from P.C. W. Davies, 1980 (Other Worlds), pp. 176-177.
"A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons, --yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars." Leslie, page 4, quoting Hawking, Physics Bulleting: Cambridge, vol. 32, 1980, pp 9-10.
The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been found to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact the resulting imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, rocks, stars, to explode violently. The Universe would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air. There would be nothing else. Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."
The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and Earth would be covered with solid ice. This property is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom. Leslie, p 30, quoting Barrow and Tipler pp 143-144. CF Debtys Wilkinson, Our Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp 171-172.
The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4. beryllium-8 and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long." Wilkinson, pp 181-183. See also John Gribbon and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (New York: Bantam, 1989 pp. 243-247.
Scientific Evidence for Ephesians 4:15, 4:10 and 1 Corinthians 12:27
The Gaia Hypothesis states that all the life forms on Planet Earth work together to keep the planet life-bearing. There is much evidence for this. The heat output of the Sun has changed much down through the ages, and yet the temperature of our planet has maintained the narrow range necessary to maintain Life.
The level of atmospheric gasses has also remained, for the most part, a steady constant despite changing conditions. This is extremely important. If there were not enough oxygen in the atmosphere, fauna would die. If there were too much oxygen and not enough carbon dioxide and methane, plants would die and the atmosphere would be so flammable, fires would overrun the Earth.
Too much of both oxygen and carbon dioxide would also be fatal. But a third gas, methane, (produced by termites and digestion) is just abundant enough to keep the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in check.
Some kind of biological feedback system must be working to keep all this balanced. As of yet, there is no evidence Gaia is sentient, but She is biological.
Near Death Experiences:
Medical science has advanced to the point where people can enter a hospital DOA (Dead On Arrival) and leave it alive! Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and other medical procedures are restoring the life functions of many who would have been considered irreversibly dead in earlier times. According to a recent Gallup poll at least 8 million people in the United States have had Near Death Experiences (NDE's). Most of these people now have an unshakable belief that there is something beyond this earthly life of ours.
There have been some small attempts by scientists to clarify whether these experiences are real or hallucinatory. Their attempts have lead to some intriguing statistics. Dr. Kenneth Ring found out quite early that a patient who receives anesthesia is less likely to report a NDE than one who has not. Thus drugs do not seem to be the cause of NDE's. World wide researchers have found that NDE's do not vary from country to country or culture to culture. An Australian Aborigine will report the same kind of experiences as a New York Taxi Driver (not using the same language, of course). Also the number of reported incidences is amazing. Thousands have entered their names into the database of the International Association of Near Dead Studies. There is disagreement about what NDE's are, but that they have occurred to millions of normal people, is beyond doubt.
Some of the evidence is anecdotal. One lady found herself floating up to the hospital roof, where she noted a red shoe in the gutter. Upon her return to life, she told the doctor, who laughed and laughed. The Doctor told the janitor who also laughed, but he went up on the roof and looked for himself, and sure enough, there was the red shoe in the gutter! Another lady told her doctor she had watched her medical procedure while floating above the operating table. To prove it she mentioned that there were several coins on top of the cabinet in the operating room. The doctor got a chair, stood on it and looked, and sure enough the money was there in the denominations the patient had mentioned.
Some evidence is more scientific. Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist connected with the Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center, divided patients into two groups; twenty-two patients who had reported NDE's while being resuscitated, and twenty-five who didn't. He asked the twenty-two patients who had the NDE's to describe what the resuscitation attempt had looked like to them. He asked the twenty-five who had not reported any such experience to imagine as accurately as possible what they thought their resuscitations had been like.
Twenty out of the twenty five of the imaginers made major errors in their attempts to report what had happened. None of the twenty-two experiencers made any major errors. Six of the twenty-two were able to recall very specific events during their resuscitation, such as the gurneys they were riding on, the shape of the paddles used to revive them and which family members were or weren't waiting for them in the waiting area. This is not a big study and many more of a larger nature need to be done to confirm the matter on a scientific level, but it is an intriguing start. It certainly indicates the experience is more than just a hallucination brought on by a part of the brain being stimulated and that the out of body viewpoint is real.
There are several stages typical of a NDE. Not all experiencers report every stage. The early stages are reported more often than the later stages. Among those stages reported are, feelings of peace and quiet, finding oneself out of one's body, going through a dark tunnel, meeting up with a Being of Light, having one's life reviewed, coming to a border of some kind and being told if one goes through the border, one can't return, and making the decision to return.
The Scientific Study of Prayer Under Controlled Conditions
Proof it works. Proof it Doesn't ALWAYS Work
There have been over a hundred experiments done of the effect of prayer on various life forms. Experiments with people showed that prayer positively affected high blood pressure, wounds, heart attacks, headaches and anxiety. In many cases we can suspect a psychosomatic reason for these improvements, but not all. Some of these experiments were done in a double blind manner. That means that neither the doctor nor the subjects knew who was being prayed for, and who wasn't. That can rule out the placebo effect. Subjects didn't get better just because the doctors thought they would and somehow subconsciously communicated that belief to their patients.
To quote from Dr. Larry Dossey MD's book: "Healing Words" The subjects in these studies also included water, enzymes, bacteria, fungi, yeast, red blood cells, cancer cells, pacemaker cells, seeds, plants, algae, moth larvae, mice and chicks; and among the processes that had been influenced were the activity of enzymes, the growth rates of leukemic white blood cells, mutation rates of bacteria, germination and growth rates of various seeds, the firing rate of pacemaker cells, healing rate of wounds, the size of goiters and tumors, the time required to awaken from anesthesia, autonomic effects such as electrodermal activity of the skin, rates of hemolysis of red blood cells, and hemoglobin levels. It did not seem to matter whether the praying person was in the presence of the organism being prayed for, or was miles away. Objects locked in lead lined rooms and "cages" designed to block all known forms of electromagnetic energy were still affected.
In one study by researcher Daniel P. Wirth the effects of prayer on wound healing were studied. This was a double blind study. Forty-four subjects were deliberately wounded with full skin thickness surgical wounds. They were not told they were going to be prayed for. None of the patients were told they were receiving any kind of a healing treatment at all. They were told to insert the arm with the wound on it through a hole in the wall for five minutes. The reason for this unusual exercise was explained to them to be for the purpose of measuring the "biopotentials" from the surgical site with a "noncontact device." Little did they know that the "noncontact device" was actually a person praying for their wounds. With twenty-two of the subjects she was in the room praying, and with twenty-two of the subjects she was not in the room praying. Several times during the study, doctors double blinded as to which patient was in what group, traced the wounds on transparent acetate sheets. Then an independent technician, also double blinded, would digitize the tracings into a computer for data collection. By day eight the wound sizes of the prayed for subjects were significantly smaller than the non-prayed for subjects. On day sixteen the result was measured again. By then thirteen of the prayed for wounds were completely healed as opposed to none of the non-prayed for wounds.
Not all experiments were done double blind. In one early study done at the McGill University in Montreal by Dr. Bernard Grad, eighteen children with terminal leukemia were old to pray to God every night before going to bed. Another eighteen children with terminal leukemia were not told this. Ninety percent of the praying children survived an average of fourteen months. Only thirty-seven percent of the nonpraying children lived that long. Notice that this study does not prove that prayer CURES terminal leukemia. It only prolonged the children's lives. It did not necessarily heal them. Also note that the praying children at were very much aware that faith was being used to help them. We cannot rule out the psychosomatic effect here. Similar successes have been achieved when adults with terminal cancer were simply given psychological counseling during their fight for life. The counseled group lived longer than the noncounseled group This study does show that prayer is good for one's mental health and that improved mental health can prolong life.
ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT?
There is one way to know for YOURSELF that God exists and that Christ is God. Suspend disbelief for a few moments, and take a leap of faith and have the courage to SINCERELY pray the following prayer. Now you suspend disbelief for hours at a time to watch a movie, or read a book, you can surely do it for sixty seconds to perform an important experiment!
Leaps of faith are necessary in everything, even science. We wouldn't' have made it to the Moon if Humanity hadn't taken a leap of faith that the technology to make it possible would be inventible and put in the effort to invent it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
If Christ is not real, you will be no worse off than you were before. If Christ is real you will have gained eternal life and found a new best friend.
A few words of warning; you must be willing to commit to allowing this Presence to change you into the Being He wants you to be. If you perform it half heartedly, or with no real intention of changing, you will get nowhere. Not everyone is up to performing this experiment, Are you?
"Dear Lord Jesus, I have trouble believing in you. Please help my unbelief. If you are real, please forgive me my faults and help me to forgive others. Thank you for taking responsibility for my faults yourself by dying on the cross for me, and help me to overcome my faults. Please come to live inside of me. Be my Lord and Savior. Help me to live for you, and help me to help others find you. Amen."
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."
In this short article, I summarize my ideas about the second law of thermodynamics, and why I believe it points to a creator God.This article also appears in the book In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John F. Ashton, and published by Master Books, Green Forest, AR. Copyright 2000 by John F. Ashton. It is available on-line from Answers in Genesis .
A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.
Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.
As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.
Is this scientific proof for the existence of a Creator God? I think so. Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God.
The fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Richard Dawkins considers to be his most convincing argument that no gods exist. He calls this argument the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit." Dawkins asserts that the "The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist." However, as we shall see, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins, of course, believes that evolution (biological or cosmological) can explain all of nature, and presents arguments to support his views in this chapter.The Ultimate Boeing 747
The Boeing 747 allusion is from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth. According to Hoyle, the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner. However, Dawkins turns the argument around, and concludes that any designer must be even more improbable:
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
Dawkins does not present the argument formally, but here it is extracted from the few sentences he actually devotes to the argument:
* Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself
* Premise #2. God shows evidence of design in himself
* Conclusion #1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself
Argument #2:
* Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
* Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods)
* Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no god can exist
Although Dawkins does not believe that premise #1 is true, he accepts it as such, supposedly being a premise that all theists would accept as true. However, theists make no such claim that all possible entities require design. Specifically, we can't know for sure if God shows evidence of design, since He is not even a physical entity (God is a spirit). The proof that the first premise is false can be shown by using it against Dawkins' own preferred universe designer - the multiverse. Here is Dawkins' argument turned against itself:
* Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself
* Premise #2. The universe shows evidence of design in itself
* Conclusion #1. Hence the universe requires a designer (a multiverse) superior to itself
Argument #2:
* Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
* Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of universes)
* Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no universes can exist
Obviously, the universe does exist, so there must be something wrong with Dawkins' argument! Dawkins argument falls flat because premise #1 is false. Entities can be either contingent or necessary. The Creator (or creator) of the universe is a necessary entity and is not contingent upon anything nor requires a designer. This must be true or no universe would exist at all. So, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins' failure to distinguish between necessary and contingent entities also assumes that cause and effect operates upon all entities. However, the evidence indicates that time itself began at the beginning of the Big Bang. Without the existence of time, cause and effect do not operate. So, whatever or Whoever created the universe lies outside of time and space and has "always" existed. What was Dawkins thinking? (or was he?)
-
^Banned for being a higher level than me! >.<;
-
Not even hardly. Evolution is just the changes in gene pools over time and is silent on the beginning of that life. It is also silent on the existence of any or all deities. Those that try to make it say something it doesn't are building straw men to knock down.
Straw Man: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument (dictionary.com)
My argument is not fabricated, nor is it weak. When you study science books and religious books, there are implications that are made. One such implication is that if evolution is true then God is not. By refuting some of the base principles of evolution, I am implying that God is real.
Not really. Life could be created by a committee of gods, by chance, by supervised chance, by alien intervention, by alien negligence, or a host of other possible starts that gave us the first life form or forms on the planet.Except that it cannot, once you apply any amount of real science and not just what some moldy old professor told you.
Then for the purpose of this debate, you're using a strawman attack. Maybe what you mean to use is something like: According to the atheist definition of how the universe works... Of course, it's still not accurate, but at least the terms seem to be closer to the true nature of your argument.Again, it is not a straw man argument. What, did you take a debate class in high school? Maybe you did not do so well in it? I mean, you have not been able to refute any of my points. If they were straw men, refuting them should be easy.
Tell me, what text book declares, just to start, that everything comes from nothing? Which scientists?There are so many to choose from. Try actually reading up on evolution. Study it enough and you will see that the conclusion that it leads us to (if it is correct) is that everything comes from nothing.
-
That's not true. First five books of the old testament are the Jewish holy book.And it is possible to not agree with Christians totally, and still believe in God and Jesus. Men wrote the bible, and I don't agree with them. And did you know that the first testiment is actualy the Jewish bible?
Again, not true. Jesus did not contradict the old testament, actually, he quoted it frequently. And the jewish rabis were upset for completely different reasons.Christians are only supposed to follow the new testiment. Jesus actually contradicted Jewish law in his teachings, hence why he wasn't well liked by a lot of people. But Christianity was created by a group of men who got together and decided what they wanted tobelieve.
That's fine. ^^I don't follow organized religion period. I did a lot of soul searching and decided what I believe. I guess you can say I invented my own branch of the Christan religion. I'm not the type to let someone tell me what to believe and what's right and wrong. -
HAPPY VALENTINES DAY EVERYONE ON AFF~! <3 :3 I know I had a great valentines day with my lover and all we did was eat out, bought wine and champaign, and rented some movies and went home after dinner to snuggle together and ate some chocolate cake and drank some alcohol and watched The Invasion and Premonition; then went to bed to sleep! X3 It was the greatest valentines I had in awhile... And we were content to stay home and spend time with each other, sense my lover is usually busy with work and school, we finally got to spend some time with each other! :3 And all day we held hands and said "I Love You" to each other, with a lot of hugging and kissing! X3 So romantic~! (well to me it was... >.>)
-
You know... it doesn't make sense that you don't follow the Christian beliefs and yet you believe in God and Jesus Christ. And you say you have a good relationship with him, but the thing is, to have a good relationship with God and Jesus, you must follow the Christian beliefs and teachings. What exactly are the Christian beliefs do you not follow?I don't follow the Christian beliefs for the most part, but I do believe that Jesus Christ was indeed sent to earth as the son of God. I have a good relationship with him, and in my darkest hours it has been a life saver... literally.
I don't think it's a good idea telling people about such things, many would have a hard time believing it and call you crazy. I'm just trying to look out for you and help you from having people judge you on this... you know what I mean? o.oTo sum up how old.... I watched the spynx being built.... You do the math. -
YEAH! YOUR THE MIRACLE BABY! THE .1%!!! XD; HOW COULD YOU BE A MISTAKE, THAT'S PROOF THAT YOU WERE MEANT TO LIVE, GOD WANTED YOU ON EARTH BADLY! I swear... you must have some GREAT, IMPORTANT THING you are suppose to do! >.>I was an accident.<.<
Let me know when you save the world! o.o
XD;
-
Hmm... well, I'm one who forgives and forgets. But, I would be suspicous about the person doing it again. I mean, I will give chances to everyone, but once you have screwed me over twice, I will just go my own way. I mean, I'm not trying to be mean or anything but seriously... you should learn from your mistakes and be a better person from it. I'm not going to deal with the crap again especially when I know I have given the person many chances to change themselves. >_> It just shows me that the person isn't willign to change for the better and stay in their own destructive manner, whatever that may be. I am also not one to judge, after all, I hate being judged by other people, so I would be a hipocrit if I did the same thing to another. But yeah, it drives me nuts and pisses me off so much when I have people judging me and I'm not going around doing the same thing to them! D< I mean seriously people, mind your own damn bussiness and if you don't like what I do, FUCK OFF! I don't fucking judge you on the shit you do! D<
As my favorite saying goes: "Before you point out the splinter in my eye, first you should remove the plank in yours!" DX<
-
Agreed. And I don't think being civil is overrated, it means your being the better man and actually stand out as the better person, in my opinion. >_>You're looking for Angrophobia, and the roots are in Greek
You can find the complete list at phobialist.comAnd sometimes it's hard to control passionate feelings like anger, but releasing large amounts of "Fuck You" to the world won't help you get at the root of your anger. Anger tends to eat away at your insides and sap your energy, so it may actually be in your best interest to pick your battles and let the rest just roll right off of you.
Devil May Cry
in Promote a Story!
Posted
I am back~! And I have great news, I have chapter 6 and chapter 7 up! Taking a break now and will be working on chapter 8 soon when it's not busy for me. Enjoy~!