The Concourse of Atoms Could Not Make the World.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

People,

 

Evidence to consider.

 

If you want to change background to white on web page then look to top right hand corner of web page for small mechanical symbol and click on it and choose. Look to the other side for the small contents symbol to navigate through the books.

 

Part of.

 

Chapter XVIII.—The Concourse of Atoms Could Not Make the World.

 

"Then, in the next place, if they are ceaselessly borne about, and always coming, and being added to things whose measure is already complete, how can the universe stand, when new weights are always being heaped upon so vast weights? And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction, if indeed the yawning top of the structure was not propped and bound by any stays?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.x.xviii.html

 

Edited June 1, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Klaynos]

Planet forming disks have been observed. Star forming regions have also been observed.

 

The quoted text is almost meaningless and the bits that do make sense indicate that the author has a very limited knowledge of nature. Further reading isn't really required to dismiss it.

 

To add, this is a discussion forum, probably worth trying to start a discussion not just link off site without much comment.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

Klaynos,

 

Planet forming disks have been observed. Star forming regions have also been observed.

 

Maybe maybe not, I've not seen them. You may need to know that there is another topic in this forum about the Old Testament having contradictions in to test peoples judgement. What if many other texts of Christianity and Judaism are like that ?

 

The quoted text is almost meaningless and the bits that do make sense indicate that the author has a very limited knowledge of nature.

 

I'm not convinced everything is revealed in a short period of time in one chapter and what did you mean by almost meaningless ?

 

Further reading isn't really required to dismiss it.

 

Like I put above this The Old Testament may be composed to test anyone's knowledge of reality. May be you passed or may be you believe everything you are told or read of scientists, I don't know because I haven't investigated.

 

To add, this is a discussion forum, probably worth trying to start a discussion not just link off site without much comment.

 

Discussion in progress. I have been waiting for posts and questions.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

More of.

Chapter XVIII.—The Concourse of Atoms Could Not Make the World.

For as those who build circular domes, unless they bind the fastening of the central top, the whole falls at once; so also the circle of the world, which we see to be brought together in so graceful a form, if it was not made at once, and under the influence of a single forth-putting of divine energy by the power of a Creator, but by atoms gradually concurring and constructing it, not as reason demanded, but as a fortuitous issue befell, how did it not fall down and crumble to pieces before it could be brought together and fastened?

 

http://www.ccel.org/...ii.x.xviii.html

Edited June 1, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Klaynos]

Maybe maybe not, I've not seen them.

 

Then perhaps you should do some research into the matter?

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=planet+formation+disks

 

You may need to know that there is another topic in this forum about the Old Testament having contradictions in to test peoples judgement. What if many other texts of Christianity and Judaism are like that ?

 

Science can only deal with what can be observed. What you are proposing is the same as saying, if I hold a ball 1m above the ground and release it, the ball moves upwards, it only appears to every measurement we can do to move downwards because that is god's will.

 

That is just a waste of time, and useless. If that's the game you want to play, you don't want a science forum, you want a fairy story forum. I'm of the general opinion that if "god" is going to play tricks like that then it can't be a very nice entity, manipulative and deceitful, not something I'd like to associate with and certainly not the perfect being that people like to preach about, although, you don't need that evidence to realise that, have a look around at the last weeks news story, does the world really appear to be the product of a perfect entity? I'd wager not, although that is going a bit off topic, but I hope you see why I've included it.

 

I'm not convinced everything is revealed in a short period of time in one chapter and what did you mean by almost meaningless ?

 

Let me quote a few off the lines in your first post:

 

Then, in the next place, if they are ceaselessly borne about, and always coming, and being added to things whose measure is already complete,

 

These statements mean nothing, they have no content.

 

how can the universe stand, when new weights are always being heaped upon so vast weights?

 

Again this makes no sense, what does it mean by a weight, weight is a specific property related to gravitational wells and objects in them.

 

The few sentences that do make any kind of sense are just wrong. I see that it was written a long time ago, shockingly science has moved forwards, things move on, if you want to know how the universe works I'd advise to start with not reading anything that hasn't at least been thoroughly reviewed in the last 10 years. Once you know where the world of science (or a specific area thereof) you can review older works for historical context,

 

Like I put above this The Old Testament may be composed to test anyone's knowledge of reality.

 

Please see my comment about the ball above.

 

May be you passed or may be you believe everything you are told or read of scientists,

 

Science is only concerned with observational evidence, please do some research on the scientific method.

 

I don't know because I haven't investigated.

 

There's two things above I've suggested you start with.

[swansont]

"Then, in the next place, if they are ceaselessly borne about, and always coming, and being added to things whose measure is already complete, how can the universe stand, when new weights are always being heaped upon so vast weights?

 

The universe does not stand on anything or need to support itself, so that's just a straw-man

 

And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction, if indeed the yawning top of the structure was not propped and bound by any stays?

 

It's called physics, and also argument from incredulity and/or appeal to ridicule. There is no "top of the structure" (no inherent direction in the universe) and there is no need for "support".

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

Klaynos,

 

Then perhaps you should do some research into the matter?

 

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...formation+disks

 

 

If I ever need to, I might.

 

 

Science can only deal with what can be observed. What you are proposing is the same as saying, if I hold a ball 1m above the ground and release it, the ball moves upwards, it only appears to every measurement we can do to move downwards because that is god's will.

 

Some kinds of balls have little weight and the wind can blow them like a balloon. So your comparison appears to be false.

 

That is just a waste of time, and useless.

 

Have you looked in the topic about it in this forum ? You may learn of its use there. Maybe it was a system to stop dangerous people claiming to have the authority of God. You may have knowledge of what people have done saying its because of God. You may find a different topic in this forum about false philosophers and prophets.

 

If that's the game you want to play, you don't want a science forum, you want a fairy story forum.

 

That doesn't disprove that the Old Testament has contradictions in to test people. Is that really a way of proving in science ? Is that how real scientists discuss ?

 

I'm of the general opinion that if "god" is going to play tricks like that then it can't be a very nice entity, manipulative and deceitful, not something I'd like to associate with and certainly not the perfect being that people like to preach about,

 

Some Israelites knew the truth about it, maybe there was a time the gentiles didn't. You may read more about this in a topic of this forum.

 

Humans need literature so what you said doesn't disprove there is an all knowing God.

 

Have you ever taken a test to get a qualification or for a job with a list of answers to choose from ?

 

although, you don't need that evidence to realise that, have a look around at the last weeks news story, does the world really appear to be the product of a perfect entity?

 

I'm glad it hasn't been proven humans made the world after all errors and harm people may done, including some believed to be religious people and scientists.

 

I'd wager not, although that is going a bit off topic, but I hope you see why I've included it.

 

What is perfection ? If a government reports a hurricane coming towards people and its not in sight, should the people accept that it might be true or leave it in doubt and see if they were wrong ? May be you'll start a topic of this in this forum or I might.

 

Let me quote a few off the lines in your first post:

 

 

These statements mean nothing, they have no content.

 

Will you prove that by defining each word and explaining any error you believe you see so we may see you really understood what you were talking about.

 

Again this makes no sense, what does it mean by a weight, weight is a specific property related to gravitational wells and objects in them.

 

You may look through a list of definitions, I reason the word 'weight' may be for 'heavy object'. This may be similar to what is known as metaphorical sense. I reason it may be a spiritual sense. We may reason of weight to be invisible to us like wind so then you may see how something reasoned of as invisible may be shown in a metaphorical sense or spiritual sense. For example the man's breath moved it like the breeze or God is like a father. So you may see how a spirit may be reasoned of as like the wind because they are reasoned of as being similar and both invisible. And from that you may understand that is how the bible may be partly understood.

 

The few sentences that do make any kind of sense are just wrong.

 

If you've not remembered, no one has disproved that the Old Testament may have had Contradictions in to test people.

 

May be some statements are part right and part wrong or part true and part false. Maybe a statement might show somethings to be right and wrong at the same time. For example 'it is right that it is wrong' and a statement may show somethings to be false and true at the same time. For example 'it is true that it is false.

 

I see that it was written a long time ago, shockingly science has moved forwards, things move on, if you want to know how the universe works I'd advise to start with not reading anything that hasn't at least been thoroughly reviewed in the last 10 years.

 

Do people still not use ancient knowledge of maths and other things ? If they do some things have remained the same as hundreds of years ago.

 

Once you know where the world of science (or a specific area thereof) you can review older works for historical context,

 

I could look at ancient knowledge of maths or any other subject in a book printed last year without other knowledge of history included.

 

Please see my comment about the ball above.

 

You didn't need to put that. You didn't know I was able to see an occurence of the same reasoning to one of your answers.

 

Science is only concerned with observational evidence, please do some research on the scientific method.

 

Can you see the wind ? If you can't, does that show the wind does not exist ?

 

There's two things above I've suggested you start with.

 

It appears you didn't understand what I put. You may see below.

 

"Like I put above this The Old Testament may be composed to test anyone's knowledge of reality. May be you passed or may be you believe everything you are told or read of scientists, I don't know because I haven't investigated."

 

So far I reason you do believe what you read and are told by scientists and some of your knowledge is not from experience.

 

Its similar to what some people call having faith or trust, check the dictionary definitions if you believe I'm wrong. Some people may be trusted and some people shouldn't be trusted, may be some scientists have have a kind of knowledge and wisdom and you may agree there are some scientists who's claims have been proven false or have caused harm to people.

 

Was the drug thalidomide as a result of a kind of scientific work ? Did the drug cause babies to have deformed bodies ? Did the creators of it claim to be Christian or not ? I don't know.

 

Some people aren't Christians, they are false.

 

May I find any work of science from which people have been injured or killed ?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

swansont,

 

The universe does not stand on anything or need to support itself, so that's just a straw-man

 

In this forum you may find a topic about parts of the bible containing truths and falsities to test people. Maybe Christian and Jewish ancient literature has a similar system. You may find some reasons why in the topic.

 

It's called physics, and also argument from incredulity and/or appeal to ridicule. There is no "top of the structure" (no inherent direction in the universe) and there is no need for "support".

 

You may read part of post #1 below.

"And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction,"

 

Can you answer the question in that part ?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[swansont]

In this forum you may find a topic about the part of the bible containing truths and falsities to test people.

 

I'm not interested in any diversions from the topic, so no thank you.

You may read part of post #1 below.

 

"And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction,"

Can you answer the question in that part ?

 

 

I have addressed this already. This is a straw-man argument. There is no need to "support" anything. The details can be found in the study of physics.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

swansont,

 

 

I'm not interested in any diversions from the topic, so no thank you.

 

Thanks.

I have addressed this already. This is a straw-man argument. There is no need to "support" anything. The details can be found in the study of physics.

 

No one knows how the world was put together and I've not seen the answer from you of how it didn't collapse whilst in construction. I thought I may add some more thoughts to the question so you may read the quote below.

 

"And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction,"

If the parts of the world were separate at one time and then put together how did the parts come together in an order without the parts being mixed in disorder. ?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Phi for All]

swansont,No one knows how the world was put together and I've not seen the answer from you of how it didn't collapse whilst in construction. I thought I may add some more thoughts to the question so you may read the quote below.

 

"And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction,"

If the parts of the world were separate at one time and then put together how did the parts come together in an order without the parts being mixed in disorder. ?

I find this style of argument to be intellectually dishonest. You ask questions and when valid, supported answers are given you ask other questions that require us to provide you with years of science education. This is a discussion forum, not an elementary school classroom.

[ACG52]

If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction,"

 

 

But the heavens are not constructed of atoms. It's mainly vacuum. No support needed.

 

You have some very strange ideas about the physical universe.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

ACG52,

 

 

But the heavens are not constructed of atoms. It's mainly vacuum. No support needed.

 

You have some very strange ideas about the physical universe.

 

I never told you what I believed.

 

 

There is a topic in this forum about the Old Testament containing contradictions to test people. I have reasoned other ancient texts of Christianity and Judaism may have a similar system.

 

The sentence starts with the word 'If' which shows the rest of the wording is in doubt.

 

Do you reason the word 'atom' may be a mistranslation ?

 

If the parts of the world were separate at one time and then put together how did the parts come together in an order without the parts being mixed in disorder. ?

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[ACG52]

Do you reason the word 'atom' may be a mistranslation ?

 

 

No, I reason that everything you've posted makes damn little sense, and as far as I can see you're simply trolling.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

ACG52,

 

 

No, I reason that everything you've posted makes damn little sense, and as far as I can see you're simply trolling.

 

No, I'm not trolling.

 

Maybe you said all that because you wanted to hide that you can't overcome the challenges.

 

I don't see any benefit in speaking to you if you continue like that.

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I never told you what I believed.

 

 

In a way, you did.

You told us that the universe would have needed some sort of support while it was built.

And yet, because of the way the universe works (at least locally and as far as we can tell, throughout the whole thing) we know that the universe wouldn't need a scaffold.

 

You plainly have at least one very strange idea about how the universe works.

I think you should find out a lot more before you try and argue on a science website.

Not only do you need to learn the science, you need to learn how to construct a debate.

Making sweeping statements like "The Concourse of Atoms Could Not Make the World." is absurd unless you back it up with evidence (and I remind you that old books are not really evidence).

The simple answer to "The Concourse of Atoms Could Not Make the World."

is that they could, and they did.

There's an entire universe of evidence; and you are trying to use a couple of old books to disprove it.

Are you trolling or do you just have a very poor understanding of logic?

Edited June 3, 2012 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

No one knows how the world was put together and I've not seen the answer from you of how it didn't collapse whilst in construction. I thought I may add some more thoughts to the question so you may read the quote below.

 

We do have a pretty good idea of how the world was put together. It's called physics. The main effect is gravity, with which you are probably familiar. There's also the electromagnetic force, which is important because that limits how close atoms will get to each other. You reach a steady state of the repelling force of the atoms and the attractive force of gravity. Since the world is not hollow, collapse is not an option.

 

"And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction,"

If the parts of the world were separate at one time and then put together how did the parts come together in an order without the parts being mixed in disorder. ?

 

Coming together without being "mixed in disorder" is some physics but also a matter of chemistry. Water, for example is H2O — always two hydrogens and one oxygen. When you mix hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark , you don't get a random jumbling of combinations of the two elements. You get water, and perhaps some H2O2. The original gases are not some random combinations, either. You have H2 and O2. Systems minimize their energy; this happens spontaneously.