What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[Blue-Lightning]

LOL butthurt christian soldier playing physicist.

When you can hold your own in the conversation, let me know. Otherwise you're like a gnat. Maybe if we were on the playground in kindergarten, this would work... but your current tactic just shows you don't know enough to participate.

It's okay - maybe you'll get smarter over time if you apply yourself.

BL

[Blue-Lightning]

You don't choose whether to believe in something. I can't choose to believe the grass is blue or the sky green.

That's a poor analogy. A better analogy is like the stock market where investors choose to put their faith in certain companies with their money. Or like how when you sat in your chair, you put your faith in it since you didn't inspect it first.

BL

[redzero]

I believe in John 3:16

Why?


Hope I'm wrong but if I'm not...sorry that's the path you've chosen for yourself.

:hungry: Good, so the all-loving God can send me to eternal damnation! Won't be the first thing he does that makes no damn sense.


I'm assuming you mean "past." The answer to that question is that the creator must be outside our universe in order to be outside the first law of thermodynamics. Now since time is a part of our universe, we can't be sure that it exists outside of it, and if it does what it's like. So, there may not be a "past" for the creator to have. Then again their may be. Maybe the creator was created by another creator and another creator, etc. Who knows? Faith can tell you what the creator is like (outside of revelation, according to those who believe it), but we really don't have any concrete information on the multiverse, if it exists, what's there, or what the creator is.

Good question,

BL

Or maybe you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you don't know that there is a creator. Maybe you create premises only to go outside of them to come a conclusion.

[ElNono]

Prepare for an intellectual can of whoop ass in...

3

2

1

The first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means the universe cannot be self-generated. The universe also cannot have existed forever as that would mean it has an infinite past. If it has an infinite past, then how did we arrive in the present? That would be like you saying you ran an infinite amount of miles to go to the grocery store. "No you didn't." You can't travel an infinite amount of space nor time as that would mean it wasn't infinite in the first place. So the fact that we live in the present means the past cannot be infinite.

Therefore, since the universe cannot be self-generated, and since it can't have existed forever, that leaves us with one option. The universe was created by an outside source. What do we call something that creates? We call it a creator. Now whether the creator is YHWH or made of pasta is up to your own faith to decide (or lack thereof)... but the fact that it exists(ed) is undeniable.

Have fun,

BL

:lmao

Open wide, your can of whoop ass is coming right back at you including the plethora of asinine assumptions and shortcuts you made above (pretty typical of science hacks that gloat about IQ, tbh).

Unfortunately, I have to type all this on my cell, so it's gonna be later on. I'm quoting this to make sure you don't go around editing your post before the axe falls. :lol

[all_heart]

He does know what you're talking about it and he has a really good point. You need to be able to defend your beliefs better. And that "x stuff," well, that's called math.

If he can't change your beliefs, then you're no better than an ignorant piece of dirt. Intelligent people can adjust their beliefs if they see they are wrong. Wise people know that they are not above being wrong. You're not omniscient, chief. And if you can't sway his opinion, then your's must not be all that impressive.

Maybe it's because you guys are high schoolers... I don't know, but yeesh you should both be able to do better than this.

BL

Hold on cowboy, first of all I'm not really trying to change any of these clowns opinions.. over the internet?! :lol Even if that was true, they would want to believe or have an interest. Seems to me they don't at all. They can't change my beliefs cause they practically have none of their own. Never claimed to be omniscient. I'll be the first to admit, I'm not impressive in this regard, I'm no preacher nor do I know the Bible backwards or forwards but I do know what kind of life God wants me to live though and I can tell when people are talking non-sense for the sake of argument. High school?! Very funny. I'm nearly 20 yrs removed, that's why I have no silly or cute avatars or sigs... :lol I come here to talk Spurs, but this is where I find myself...

[all_heart]

That's a poor analogy. A better analogy is like the stock market where investors choose to put their faith in certain companies with their money. Or like how when you sat in your chair, you put your faith in it since you didn't inspect it first.

BL

Yes, thank you.

[baseline bum]

When you can hold your own in the conversation, let me know. Otherwise you're like a gnat. Maybe if we were on the playground in kindergarten, this would work... but your current tactic just shows you don't know enough to participate.

It's okay - maybe you'll get smarter over time if you apply yourself.

BL

LOL @ using a physical argument for a metaphysical concept like the universe being generated.

[all_heart]

Why?



:hungry: Good, so the all-loving God can send me to eternal damnation! Won't be the first thing he does that makes no damn sense.



Or maybe you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you don't know that there is a creator. Maybe you create premises only to go outside of them to come a conclusion.

What do you mean "why?" Ask a better question if you are gonna ask why.

You talk/write as if there is a God, but you don't understand him. Is this true? If you don't believe in God, then why does any of this concern you whatsoever?

[redzero]

Why do you believe what John 3:16 says? It's a simple question.

[underdawg]

I don't think people are dumb for believing in white man in the sky god tbh. I mean, it's a huge and sophisticated con-job that begins in childhood when people are more apt to respect and pay attention to figures of authority. When someone gets cheated, you don't blame the victim; you blame the swindlers.

what religion believes in the "white man in the sky"?

[all_heart]

Why do you believe what John 3:16 says? It's a simple question.

Because in my heart I feel those words to be true. I believe Jesus was sent to us to lay down the blueprint for us to gain eternal life in Heaven. The simple answer is because I have Faith and you just don't understand that concept.

[all_heart]

Why do you believe what John 3:16 says? It's a simple question.

I answered you, now answer my questions:

You talk/write as if there is a God, but you don't understand him. Is this true? If you don't believe in God, then why does any of this concern you whatsoever?

BTW, what's your beef with Thomas Aquinas? Did you get butt raped @TA high school or something? Shame on those people for what they did to you.

[Blake]

I'll be the first to admit, I'm not impressive in this regard, I'm no preacher nor do I know the Bible backwards or forwards

No way

[ElNono]

The first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means the universe cannot be self-generated.

Let's start with the first asinine assumption here. You haven't established that:

A) The law of thermodynamics apply to a fairly unique event like the creation of the universe, if, in fact there was such an event (and I think we can agree that should it have happened, it was a fairly unique event). It's not like we don't have physical phenomena that only apply either only locally or under certain circumstances (quantum physics, newton's law of gravity, etc).
Establishing that the 1st law of thermodynamics did apply in that event would be a good start.

B) Even if we assume that the 1st law of thermodynamics do apply, then it shits on your creator theory, since the creation of the universe would have been merely a transfer of energy from another source of energy (which also couldn't have been created or destroyed, merely existed as a previous transfer of energy).

C) The 1st law of thermodynamics makes no assumptions on a creator. As a matter of fact, it does away with the creator concept entirely. It's just as plausible that aliens inserted energy into a closed system and created the universe as any alleged deity doing the same. It's also just as plausible that the energy was already 'there', and it just combined into, say, the big bang under the right circumstances. Neither you or I know (yet)


The universe also cannot have existed forever as that would mean it has an infinite past. If it has an infinite past, then how did we arrive in the present? That would be like you saying you ran an infinite amount of miles to go to the grocery store. "No you didn't." You can't travel an infinite amount of space nor time as that would mean it wasn't infinite in the first place. So the fact that we live in the present means the past cannot be infinite.

Terrible stuff, and frankly it should only take you a few minutes to realize the fallacy of the argument. How we determine what's "present"? How we measure anything really? We setup frames of references. "present" is what we make it out to be based on our frame of reference. We do it all the time. We don't know when time started or when it's going to end. We simply started counting at a given time and that reference gives you the yesterday, today and tomorrow.

There's no mathematical impediment in measuring time over either a finite or infinite timeline. "Infinite" is a perfectly normal mathematical construction.

The example is specially retarded. The only reason a person wouldn't know how much they walked (a measurable event) is because they didn't set a frame of reference when they started. That would be the person being stupid, not a mathematical impossibility.

Do we know wether the universe is finite or infinite, time-wise? No we do not. Is there any mathematical impossibility for it to be infinite, no there is not.


Therefore, since the universe cannot be self-generated, and since it can't have existed forever, that leaves us with one option. The universe was created by an outside source. What do we call something that creates? We call it a creator. Now whether the creator is YHWH or made of pasta is up to your own faith to decide (or lack thereof)... but the fact that it exists(ed) is undeniable.

And finally we arrive at drawing conclusions over flawed assumptions, more typical stuff from science hacks that gloat about high IQ.

If only you actually spent more time learning about what you post you could've saved yourself the embarrassment, tbh.

[underdawg]

Well... the theists and atheists both have brought my IQ down just reading these posts.

Here you go:

The universe can't exist without some kind of creator (first law of thermodyanics, mathematical impossibility of an infinite past while in the present). To determine what the creator is or is like requires a great deal of faith since we can only know factually what exists within our own universe. Saying that a god can't or doesn't exist is mathematical ignorance.

The bible is a mess as well, and the quicker you accept that the better. It teaches a lot of really good stuff... and then it also teaches about religious abortions by the priest in Numbers. So it's a hodge podge of good versus unacceptable, with mostly good in the New Testament. And yes, I have a degree in biblical studies.

Have fun,

BL

I'm not sure what version you're looking at, but the original Hebrew does not translate a "miscarriage" as some have thought and therefore equated to God endorsing a priest to abort a baby.

[Blake]

Because in my heart I feel those words to be true. I believe Jesus was sent to us to lay down the blueprint for us to gain eternal life in Heaven. The simple answer is because I have Faith and you just don't understand that concept.

Why didn't God send Jesus before the flood?

[redzero]

Because in my heart I feel those words to be true.

Why?


I believe Jesus was sent to us to lay down the blueprint for us to gain eternal life in Heaven.

Why did God send Jesus down so many years after man was "created"? Why did God send Jesus down at all? Why didn't he just communicate directly with human beings? It would save everybody a lot of trouble.


The simple answer is because I have Faith and you just don't understand that concept.

Sorry that I actually want to have a good reason to believe something that would alter my entire life. "Feeling" just isn't good enough for me.


You talk/write as if there is a God, but you don't understand him. Is this true?

For the sake of the argument, I am assuming that the Judeo-Christian God exists.


If you don't believe in God, then why does any of this concern you whatsoever?

Because it does concern me and everybody else in America.


BTW, what's your beef with Thomas Aquinas? Did you get butt raped @TA high school or something? Shame on those people for what they did to you.

Butt raped? What?

[ElNono]

Nono man, bible boy needs you to do more "learning".

Apparently, counting laps on a circle-shaped (and thus infinite) track is a mathematical impossibility. You have to wonder what kind of vortex and black holes building one of those would create... :lol

[redzero]

Let's start with the first asinine assumption here. You haven't established that:

A) The law of thermodynamics apply to a fairly unique event like the creation of the universe, if, in fact there was such an event (and I think we can agree that should it have happened, it was a fairly unique event). It's not like we don't have physical phenomena that only apply either only locally or under certain circumstances (quantum physics, newton's law of gravity, etc).
Establishing that the 1st law of thermodynamics did apply in that event would be a good start.

B) Even if we assume that the 1st law of thermodynamics do apply, then it shits on your creator theory, since the creation of the universe would have been merely a transfer of energy from another source of energy (which also couldn't have been created or destroyed, merely existed as a previous transfer of energy).

C) The 1st law of thermodynamics makes no assumptions on a creator. As a matter of fact, it does away with the creator concept entirely. It's just as plausible that aliens inserted energy into a closed system and created the universe as any alleged deity doing the same. It's also just as plausible that the energy was already 'there', and it just combined into, say, the big bang under the right circumstances. Neither you or I know (yet)



Terrible stuff, and frankly it should only take you a few minutes to realize the fallacy of the argument. How we determine what's "present"? How we measure anything really? We setup frames of references. "present" is what we make it out to be based on our frame of reference. We do it all the time. We don't know when time started or when it's going to end. We simply started counting at a given time and that reference gives you the yesterday, today and tomorrow.

There's no mathematical impediment in measuring time over either a finite or infinite timeline. "Infinite" is a perfectly normal mathematical construction.

The example is specially retarded. The only reason a person wouldn't know how much they walked (a measurable event) is because they didn't set a frame of reference when they started. That would be the person being stupid, not a mathematical impossibility.

Do we know wether the universe is finite or infinite, time-wise? No we do not. Is there any mathematical impossibility for it to be infinite, no there is not.



And finally we arrive at drawing conclusions over flawed assumptions, more typical stuff from science hacks that gloat about high IQ.

If only you actually spent more time learning about what you post you could've saved yourself the embarrassment, tbh.

What he said.

[baseline bum]

Apparently, counting laps on a circle-shaped (and thus infinite) track is a mathematical impossibility. You have to wonder what kind of vortex and black holes building one of those would create... :lol

So you don't believe it's turtles all the way down?

[ElNono]

So you don't believe it's turtles all the way down?

:lol hawkings ftw

[DMC]

prepare for an intellectual can of whoop ass in...

3

2

1

the first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means the universe cannot be self-generated. The universe also cannot have existed forever as that would mean it has an infinite past. If it has an infinite past, then how did we arrive in the present? That would be like you saying you ran an infinite amount of miles to go to the grocery store. "no you didn't." you can't travel an infinite amount of space nor time as that would mean it wasn't infinite in the first place. So the fact that we live in the present means the past cannot be infinite.

Therefore, since the universe cannot be self-generated, and since it can't have existed forever, that leaves us with one option. The universe was created by an outside source. What do we call something that creates? We call it a creator. Now whether the creator is yhwh or made of pasta is up to your own faith to decide (or lack thereof)... But the fact that it exists(ed) is undeniable.

Have fun,

bl
7/10

[all_heart]

Why?



Why did God send Jesus down so many after man was "created"? Why did God send Jesus down at all? Why didn't he just communicate directly with human beings? It would save everybody a lot of trouble.



Sorry that I actually want to have a good reason to believe something that would alter my entire life. "Feeling" just isn't good enough for me.



For the sake of the argument, I am assuming that the Judeo-Christian God exists.



Because it does concern me and everybody else in America.



Butt raped? What?

A lot of good questions, but I don't know and I doubt many could give you a good enough answer. I understand if feeling is not good enough for you, but like I said it's what many people believe and these feelings strike a strong chord inside many people and is what drives their Faith. Let me ask you, have you ever loved a person? If so how would you describe that feeling?

Don't assume for the sake of argument.. do you actually believe in a Judeo Christian God?

[all_heart]

So you don't believe it's turtles all the way down?

Infinity is a powerful word. It always trips me out that if you could travel in outer space in a straight line forever and ever and never hit a wall or boundary. And if you did.. what's on the other side of that wall?

[redzero]

Let me ask you, have you ever loved a person?

Of course not. I hate everybody.


Don't assume for the sake of argument.. do you actually believe in a Judeo Christian God?

Nope.

[all_heart]

Of course not. I hate everybody.



Nope.

So you don't love your family, no GF or spouse? Don't even love a friend or pet.

So you don't believe in "souls" that when people die, that's it. Your spirit goes nowhere, cause there is no spirit. That's what you believe?

[redzero]

Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, when we die, that's all she wrote.

[underdawg]

Why did God send Jesus down so many years after man was "created"? Why did God send Jesus down at all? Why didn't he just communicate directly with human beings? It would save everybody a lot of trouble.
Because that was God's plan as prophesized in the old testament. Mankind needed Jesus to atone for their sins. God did communicate with his people directly and they still rebelled.

Sorry that I actually want to have a good reason to believe something that would alter my entire life. "Feeling" just isn't good enough for me.
Faith in Christianity is a personal issue between you and God - there is archaeological and logical arguments, but at the end of the day faith is the requirement that God asks of us.

[baseline bum]

God needed to have a kid and then abuse him to make up for our sins? Strange guy tbh. He'd probably get the needle in Texas.

[Blue-Lightning]

Or maybe you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you don't know that there is a creator. Maybe you create premises only to go outside of them to come a conclusion.

Or maybe English isn't a language, or maybe the world is floating on the back of a giant donkey.

Or maybe you should poke holes in the argument instead of using "maybes." Because I thought that was the problem you had with believers... the whole "maybe God exists" thing.


Open wide, your can of whoop ass is coming right back at you including the plethora of asinine assumptions and shortcuts you made above (pretty typical of science hacks that gloat about IQ, tbh).

Unfortunately, I have to type all this on my cell, so it's gonna be later on. I'm quoting this to make sure you don't go around editing your post before the axe falls.

Looking forward to it.


Hold on cowboy, first of all I'm not really trying to change any of these clowns opinions.. over the internet?! Even if that was true, they would want to believe or have an interest. Seems to me they don't at all. They can't change my beliefs cause they practically have none of their own. Never claimed to be omniscient. I'll be the first to admit, I'm not impressive in this regard, I'm no preacher nor do I know the Bible backwards or forwards but I do know what kind of life God wants me to live though and I can tell when people are talking non-sense for the sake of argument. High school?! Very funny. I'm nearly 20 yrs removed, that's why I have no silly or cute avatars or sigs... I come here to talk Spurs, but this is where I find myself...

If you're not actually trying to change anyone's mind here, then why are you spending multiple hours on this?


LOL @ using a physical argument for a metaphysical concept like the universe being generated.

It's not a physical argument - it's a logical argument. Neither A nor B are possible, and C is the only other option. What other option do you see?


Because in my heart I feel those words to be true. I believe Jesus was sent to us to lay down the blueprint for us to gain eternal life in Heaven. The simple answer is because I have Faith and you just don't understand that concept.

And in the typical muslim's heart, they feel Mohammad's words to be true. Pretty weak defense in my opinion.

More coming...

[ElNono]

Looking forward to it.

*** wrecked ***

[baseline bum]

An argument resting on thermodynamics isn't a physical argument?

[Blue-Lightning]

Let's start with the first asinine assumption here. You haven't established that:

We'll see how you do...


A) The law of thermodynamics apply to a fairly unique event like the creation of the universe, if, in fact there was such an event (and I think we can agree that should it have happened, it was a fairly unique event). It's not like we don't have physical phenomena that only apply either only locally or under certain circumstances (quantum physics, newton's law of gravity, etc).
Establishing that the 1st law of thermodynamics did apply in that event would be a good start.

I don't have to, and here's why:

We know that the universe cannot have an infinite past because we live in the present, thus meaning the past was finite to arrive here. Because of that, we know that the universe has two remaining options - either it self-create, or it was created by something else. So, of those two options, we have the idea that something else created the univeerse, or the entire universe with billions upon billions upon billons of stars, came into being through magic. And that's essentially what it comes down to. The idea that there was no space nor time nor matter, and suddenly there was is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as placing a computer on the floor with no power attached to it, and expecting it to spawn a virtual world on it's harddrive. And that's not even considering the fact that the universe's own laws prevent it from creating it's own energy.


B) Even if we assume that the 1st law of thermodynamics do apply, then it shits on your creator theory, since the creation of the universe would have been merely a transfer of energy from another source of energy (which also couldn't have been created or destroyed, merely existed as a previous transfer of energy).

This one's wrong for easy reasons. Here you assume that the first law of thermodynamics must exist in other universes in the multiverse. That's simply untrue. Our universe operates with certain rules, but other universes may and probably do operate on completely different rules. Go look up String Theory.


C) The 1st law of thermodynamics makes no assumptions on a creator. As a matter of fact, it does away with the creator concept entirely. It's just as plausible that aliens inserted energy into a closed system and created the universe as any alleged deity doing the same. It's also just as plausible that the energy was already 'there', and it just combined into, say, the big bang under the right circumstances. Neither you or I know (yet)

So aliens... which would presumably live in our universe, could just have plausibly created our universe (which includes them, so they didn't exist when they created it), as a being or catalyst from another universe?

Also, for energy to have just been there, that would mean time was in existence, and that means that there must have been a starting point, otherwise you have the infinite past problem. So energy can't just sit there in an infinite past.

And too, energy doesn't combine into matter... they're distinctly different properties. That would be like saying time combined to make stars... it's utter ignorance.


Terrible stuff, and frankly it should only take you a few minutes to realize the fallacy of the argument. How we determine what's "present"? How we measure anything really? We setup frames of references. "present" is what we make it out to be based on our frame of reference. We do it all the time. We don't know when time started or when it's going to end. We simply started counting at a given time and that reference gives you the yesterday, today and tomorrow.

By "present," I'm referring to actions occuring, as opposed to have occurred or will occur. Thus, I'm not refering to frames of reference. You can't have an infinite string of actions having occurred, as you would never arrive at the action occurring. That's the definition of "infinite."

Also, we do know when time started - it began with the explosion known as the Big Bang about 13.5 gigayears in the past.


There's no mathematical impediment in measuring time over either a finite or infinite timeline. "Infinite" is a perfectly normal mathematical construction.

I think you're over your head - yes, we can measure finite numbers, but you can't measure infinity as it's definition is that it is immeasurable due to it's non-numeric idea. Also, you mean "construct," not "construction."


The example is specially retarded. The only reason a person wouldn't know how much they walked (a measurable event) is because they didn't set a frame of reference when they started. That would be the person being stupid, not a mathematical impossibility.

You mean "especially retarded," not "specially retarded." If you're going to prove your intellectual intelligence, you probably need to get the language right in the sentence doing so.

It is impossible to finish walking an infinite distance. If you can count it, it is finite. Finite is numerable, infinite is innumerable. If you cannot comprehend this, you are not capable of this debate.


And finally we arrive at drawing conclusions over flawed assumptions, more typical stuff from science hacks that gloat about high IQ.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. You have to show how it's incorrect. Good luck with that.


If only you actually spent more time learning about what you post you could've saved yourself the embarrassment, tbh.

I like your confindence. It's ignorant confidence, but it's cute =)

More coming...

[Blue-Lightning]

I'm not sure what version you're looking at, but the original Hebrew does not translate a "miscarriage" as some have thought and therefore equated to God endorsing a priest to abort a baby.

I appreciate your desire to defend the bible in this way, but I can show pretty easily that the book of Numbers supports abortions with the priest.

A miscarriage is a natural abortion, and an abortion is a manual abortion. Both are abortions, it's just that we refer to natural abortions as miscarriages to help differentiate (you can imagine women who do not believe in abortions would be upset if they had a miscarriage called an abortion).

When the husband suspects cheating in Numbers, he takes the woman to the priest, and if she has cheated, the fetus is aborted. You can call it a miscarriage, you can call it an abortion, but the bottom line is God kills the fetus. The other problem is that the woman sins, but God kills the fetus. So in that case God is punishing the fetus for the sin of the mother.


Apparently, counting laps on a circle-shaped (and thus infinite) track is a mathematical impossibility. You have to wonder what kind of vortex and black holes building one of those would create...

For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite. - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Infinite -
Mathematics .
a. not finite.

Finite -
1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2.
Mathematics .
a. (of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
b. not infinite or infinitesimal.
c. not zero.

http://www.dictionary.com

You can't count infinity. If you disagree with me, you disagree with both Wikipedia and the dictionary. Like I said, your confidence is cute, especially when you use a lauging emote about something a high school math student should know.


What he said.

Sometimes cheerleaders pull for the losing team. They tend to stop cheering as much as the game goes on.

Have fun =)

BL

[redzero]

Can one plot a point on the x-axis, or is that impossible if the axis goes on forever?

[pgardn]

There has to be imperfection in God's creation for him to be realized and glorified (John 9:2-3). Man's free will has a lot to do with the imperfection of this world - God allows it so that he can use evil to bring about good in the overall picture. This doesn't make God evil or imperfect - only he knows the outcome and the greater good that comes out of it.

I said nothing about God being evil or imperfect.

I said quit trying to hand pick natural phenomena to prove your own thoughts about how he works.

So God designed our backs for 4 legged animals so he could see how we react to constant back pain when we get older...?

20,000 people choke to death on food each year. Why not make separate orifices, one for the food, another for breathing...? We should chew our food well and watch out for the crackers down the trachea?

Since apparently you are quite tuned in to the mind of God and all...I would like some specifics.

[BUMP]

holy shit

I feel sorry for anybody that seriously put in a lot of effort in this thread

[Blue-Lightning]

Can one plot a point on the x-axis, or is that impossible if the axis goes on forever?

Yes, you can plot a finite point on an infinite series, but you cannot count the number of finite points on the infinite series, as they are both infinitely divisible and infinite in duration. Thus, you could plot a point in time in an infinite past, but you could never arrive at the present plot if counting through all finite points in the infinite past.


I feel sorry for anybody that seriously put in a lot of effort in this thread

Most people on here will probably be more successful than you. Enjoy the sympathy.

BL

[redzero]

Yes, you can plot a finite point on an infinite series,

Great. Now, would one be able to say that point divides the line into two halves?

[BUMP]

Most people on here will probably be more successful than you. Enjoy the sympathy.

BL

brool story co

enjoy wasting hours away googling stuff that nobody will give a shit about :tu

[Blue-Lightning]

Great. Now, would one be able to say that point divides the line into two halves?


Yes, you can plot a finite point on an infinite series, but you cannot count the number of finite points on the infinite series, as they are both infinitely divisible and infinite in duration.

The concept of infinite divisibility within a numeric concept is readily accepted, and is a form of infinity not like the concept of infinite spans. An infinite span (or array) is what we've been discussing with the "infinite past" idea. Now, as to infinite divisibility in time, it is unlikely that time is actually divisible infinitum as time is the sequencing of cause and effect, and ultimately that goes all the way down to the quantum level. We don't currently have the computing power to know the answer as to whether or not time is infinitely divisible, however, so that's open to conjecture.

So yes, I was fully aware of infinite divisions, as shown in the underlined quotation. Thanks for preparing to lead me to it though lol. However, infinite divisions are not the same as infinite spans.

I like the try though! You're doing pretty well if you're thinking about infinite divisions - that's a higher level of intellectual strategy in trying to prove the possibility of an infinite past. =)

BL

[Blue-Lightning]

Bump,

24,000 views on this thread. More than any other non-tagged thread on the front page. And I have yet to google anything (although I did use Wikipedia and dictionary.com once).

I've been doing this for fun. I was bored today and needed some intellectual stimulus. It's fun to be smarter than people like you! =D

BL

[redzero]

I am a simple guy. I don't know all about all that infinite span stuff.

So, you admit that something can go on infinitely in one direction?

[Blake]

So, of those two options, we have the idea that something else created the univeerse, or the entire universe with billions upon billions upon billons of stars, came into being through magic. And that's essentially what it comes down to.

I think you meant "univeeerse"


The idea that there was no space nor time nor matter, and suddenly there was is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as placing a computer on the floor with no power attached to it, and expecting it to spawn a virtual world on it's harddrive. And that's not even considering the fact that the universe's own laws prevent it from creating it's own energy.


Why would you assume that if there was no Creator that the next conclusion would have to be matter from non-matter?

[BUMP]

It's fun to be smarter than people like you!

oh


And yes, I have a degree in biblical studies.


http://www.apu.edu/theology/undergraduate/biblicalstudies/biblicalstudies/careers/


A biblical studies major’s typical starting salary is $29,388

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[BUMP]

crofl it gets better

http://www.crosswalk.com/family/career/college-degrees-useless-in-the-job-market-11628002.html


Or maybe it's because they got degrees in "university studies," political science, Biblical literature, mass communications, American history, maple syrup, the art of walking, or fishing.

:elephant:elephant:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:e lephant:elephant

[BUMP]

And yes, I have a degree in biblical studies.


http://www.ehow.com/info_7972910_useless-college-degrees.html



The Most Useless College Degrees

Theology/Religious Studies

This is probably the least career-driven of all the majors on our list(:lmao)

This field garners you a median starting salary of $34,700 per year. (:elephant)

This is why theology/religious studies as a degree by itself is fairly useless. (:nope)
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:rollin:rollin:rollin:lol:lol: lol:lol

[Juggity]

asdf


These Nazi accounts are all BUMP's?

Pretty imaginative, tbh.

[ElNono]

I don't have to

Sure you do. You're drawing conclusions from it and you've not established it applies to it at all. Frankly, I already know the answer: you don't know. Let's see how long it takes you to get there.


We know that the universe cannot have an infinite past because we live in the present, thus meaning the past was finite to arrive here.

Already debunked this false premise (about to do so again below), which invalidates the "logic" you extrapolate from it.

From a logic standpoint, your argument doesn't hold water as it is, however, I'll indulge on a question from your lazily concocted strawman:


The idea that there was no space nor time nor matter, and suddenly there was is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Does believing that requires so much more of a leap of faith than, say, an psychotic omnipotent invisible god?

The correct answer, again, is neither you or I know (yet)

At some point earlier today you thought you had a high IQ. Now THAT's ridiculous.


This one's wrong for easy reasons. Here you assume that the first law of thermodynamics must exist in other universes in the multiverse. That's simply untrue. Our universe operates with certain rules, but other universes may and probably do operate on completely different rules. Go look up String Theory.

So you subscribing to certain theory makes it true? :lol
You don't even know if multiverses exist! But you already assumed they do.

"that one" isn't "easily wrong", because your multiverse theory isn't testable, and until it isn't testable, it isn't wrong at all.

Basically, you don't know. You can say it, it's ok.


So aliens... which would presumably live in our universe, could just have plausibly created our universe (which includes them, so they didn't exist when they created it), as a being or catalyst from another universe?

Whether they would have been in our universe or not doesn't really matter. You should know that energy transfers can happen regardless of the medium. Come on now, this isn't rocket science (or maybe it is)



Also, for energy to have just been there, that would mean time was in existence, and that means that there must have been a starting point, otherwise you have the infinite past problem. So energy can't just sit there in an infinite past.

There's no "infinite past" problem.


And too, energy doesn't combine into matter... they're distinctly different properties. That would be like saying time combined to make stars... it's utter ignorance.

What do we know about matter and energy? We're basically grasping at the very basics right now. We're still hunting the famed Higgs bosom, we know next to nothing about anti-matter, we still don't fully understand quantum dynamics. And that's at the local level. What is a black hole? What's in it? What happens when you cross one?

The only thing we have are theories and conjectures. It's OK to say we don't know (yet).

Ignorance is presuming you know the answers to all these things, without being able to test any of it...


By "present," I'm referring to actions occuring, as opposed to have occurred or will occur. Thus, I'm not refering to frames of reference. You can't have an infinite string of actions having occurred, as you would never arrive at the action occurring. That's the definition of "infinite."

Bzzzzt. Wrong again. :lmao

It's not that difficult if you actually think about it. "past" implies a point of reference ("before now"). If you can't establish "now", you can't establish "past" or "future". Now the difference between past and future as far as infinite is concerned is that the future is always infinite if the timeline is infinite, and the future is always finite if the timeline is finite. For the past, it depends if the timeline has a start.

And that's because "infinite" isn't what you said it is. Infinite means that it might or might not have a start, but it has no end.

To give you a 3rd grade example you can understand, when you put two mirrors facing eachother, the reflection is infinite even though it has a start.

To recap, there's no "past" without a "now" point of reference. A finite or infinite past without establishing a "now" makes no sense, and factually doesn't exist.
Now, being that "now" can be any point on an infinite timeline, and that past and future are byproducts of now, there's no mathematical impossibility that the past wouldn't be infinite.


Also, we do know when time started - it began with the explosion known as the Big Bang about 13.5 gigayears in the past.

We estimate/theorize that. We don't know that.


I think you're over your head - yes, we can measure finite numbers, but you can't measure infinity as it's definition is that it is immeasurable due to it's non-numeric idea.

But I didn't say you can measure infinity. I said you can measure finite time over an infinite timeline. That the timeline might or might not be infinite it's irrelevant. There's nothing spooky about infinity. As I said, it's a normal mathematical construct (yes, I meant construct, damn auto-correct)

Let me know of this is getting too complicated for you, and I'll water it down a bit.


You mean "especially retarded," not "specially retarded." If you're going to prove your intellectual intelligence, you probably need to get the language right in the sentence doing so.

English not being my primary language and the fact I already said I'm typing this on a cell, doesn't make me any less of an "intellectual" (a claim I didn't make, btw), despite what you might think.

On the other hand, I know English well enough to know you understood me just fine. The grammar Nazi act normally follows the butthurtness of getting your ass handed to you like right now, actually. As most science hacks with a big ego, now that your bluff has been called, you resort to nitpicking thinking you can save any e-cred you might have left. Disapointing, but not unexpected.


It is impossible to finish walking an infinite distance. If you can count it, it is finite. Finite is numerable, infinite is innumerable. If you cannot comprehend this, you are not capable of this debate.

If I'm telling you how long it took me to arrive to a destination, the fact that I stopped running (and arrived to my destination) is implied. Which is why the walk wasn't an infinite event and your analogy just sucks.
My analogy with the circle-shaped infinite track is much better.


I like your confindence. It's ignorant confidence, but it's cute =)

Just stop and stick to biblical studies. This place is already full of science hacks that don't really know what they're talking about.

On the other hand, of you want to learn, let me know if anything of the above isn't clear enough for you, and I'll be glad to keep schooling you and your can of whoop ass...

[ElNono]

:lol I wish Aglioco would read some of this stuff. There's some science hack gold in there.

[Blue-Lightning]

I am a simple guy. I don't know all about all that infinite span stuff.

So, you admit that something can go on infinitely in one direction?

Admit? I have the knowledge that you can travel in multiple directions, and you can do it infinitely, though you'll never reach the end. That's why an infinite past is impossible, since a present would end an infinite past (thus making it finite).


I think you meant "univeeerse"

The ol' sticky key.


Why would you assume that if there was no Creator that the next conclusion would have to be matter from non-matter?

Why do you assume "creator" must be capitalized?

But to answer to your question:

A) The universe has existed forever -- a mathematical impossibility
B) The universe created itself -- breaks its own laws and has no evidence; seems illogical
C) The universe was created by an outside source -- possible

Do you have any other plausible answers?


http://www.apu.edu/theology/undergra...udies/careers/

I have multiple degrees, you pompous douchebag. Now, I can claim them, claim what jobs I work, etc... but it's the internet, so you won't believe me. However, if you'd like to follow me on Twitter, you'll find that I am an author, I work as an off-site consultant for 2K Sports, I'm an educator, and I'm an app developer for iOS and Droid. Needless to say, I make enough money to live very comfortably. However, no matter how much money I make, I would never be such a piece of flaming shit as to try to down someone based on how much money I guessed they make.

twitter.com/bluelightningtn

So... what are your credentials?


You post about God for hours on end on a message board--for fun?

What a fulfilling life you have

You can check my history... this is the first time I've ever devoted any time to it. But the opportunity to challenge myself intellectually? Yeah, that's fun. Hours? Nah... I'd say I've put around 45 minutes into it.


I think someone jess got sent to da sidelines

Do you guys suck each other's pee pees in real life or just in online forums?



So from what I gather, the entire argument you guys came up with was some sort of mocking of people with biblical degrees, not knowing that I have multiple degrees. I then put up by throwing my twitter account out there.

Man... you kiddos just can't win.

BL

[E-RockWill]

On the other hand, I know English well enough to know you understood me just fine. The grammar Nazi act normally follows the butthurtness of getting your ass handed to you like right now, actually.

:lmao

Post of the year nominee, kids. :toast

ElNono bringin' the pain.

[ElNono]

For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite. - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Infinite -
Mathematics .
a. not finite.

Finite -
1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2.
Mathematics .
a. (of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
b. not infinite or infinitesimal.
c. not zero.

http://www.dictionary.com

You can't count infinity. If you disagree with me, you disagree with both Wikipedia and the dictionary. Like I said, your confidence is cute, especially when you use a lauging emote about something a high school math student should know.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Can you count the laps on a circle-shaped (infinite) track, yes or no?

If you can, how does that invalidate the definition from dictionary.com you posted above? Why should it?

If you could post your answer with the dictionary.com definition as backdrop, that would be great :lol

[redzero]

I'm no science/math buff, but I think this guy's error in regards to infinite regress is pretty obvious.

-infinity <-----0-----> +infinity

Replace negative infinity with the past, 0 with the present, and positive infinity with the future.

If Blue's argument is correct about not being able to reach the present from an infinite past was true, wouldn't that mean that one cannot reach zero from negative infinity?

Is this clear enough? Somebody correct me.

[ElNono]

:lol throwing the street cred card...

Hey, I once worked for Tiburon/EA on the Madden franchise, no surprises we're butting heads :ihit

lol "consulting"

[ElNono]

These Nazi accounts are all BUMP's?

Pretty imaginative, tbh.

They're not. :lol

They're all from one other poster.

[ElNono]

Wait, I have a twitter account too! Intellectuals love those :lmao

[ElNono]

:lolBlue Lighting completely torpedoed his arguments when he started self-glossing.

Yew jess kent dew teengks lyke det!

And DoK didn't even make it here yet :lol

[DMC]

I ran over Schrodinger's cat today. I am not sure if it died.

[Blue-Lightning]

Sure you do. You're drawing conclusions from it and you've not established it applies to it at all. Frankly, I already know the answer: you don't know. Let's see how long it takes you to get there.

Poke a hole in the argument then. What evidence is there that all matter in the universe self-generated against the laws of thermodynamics?


Already debunked this false premise (about to do so again below), which invalidates the "logic" you extrapolate from it.

From a logic standpoint, your argument doesn't hold water as it is, however, I'll indulge on a question from your lazily concocted strawman:

You did not debunk a false premise. You, in fact, forced me to define the term "infinity" correctly for you - something that high school math students should already know.

So here's your question, and we'll see if you can answer it:

1) How is the concept of an "infinite past" illogical with a "present" a false premise?


Why is it ridiculous? Does believing that requires so much more of a leap of faith than, say, an psychotic omnipotent invisible god?

I would say that both take faith. I'm glad you admit you hold a faith-based belief.

Also, I don't believe in a psychotic, omnipotent, invisible god. So, you might want to find someone who does if you're going to argue against that idea.


The correct answer, again, is neither you or I know (yet)

We know that you hold a faith-based belief, whereas I am more agnostic as to the qualities of the creator.


At some point earlier today you thought you had a high IQ. Now THAT's ridiculous.

Yawn.


So you subscribing to certain theory makes it true?
You don't even know if multiverses exist! But you already assumed they do.

Another yawn. You postulated that if a creator did exist that he would be transferring energies from somewhere else in order to create our universe, and thus break the first law of thermodynamics. If that were true, then the somewhere else would mean another place exists outside our universe, and that constitutes a muliverse. I was just showing you why that was wrong - I suppose I do subscribe to the idea of a multiverse, just as Hawking and others do, but I don't see it as proven.


"that one" isn't "easily wrong", because your multiverse theory isn't testable, and until it isn't testable, it isn't wrong at all.

Basically, you don't know. You can say it, it's ok.

What's funny is that you don't realize you are the one who introduced the multiverse concept into the debate, but weren't knowledgable enough to recognize it. Then when I labeled it, you assumed I was supporting it. *eyeroll*


Whether they would have been in our universe or not doesn't really matter. You should know that energy transfers can happen regardless of the medium. Come on now, this isn't rocket science (or maybe it is)

Really? So it doesn't matter if the things that would be created in the universe are also the things that created it? That's like saying that it's okay to believe the puppies created the mother dog as well. And the comment about energy transfers is jibberish... it isn't science, it's just pretend knowledge. It's kind of like debating someone with a mental handicap. You're not where you need to be knowledge-wise for this debate to be interesting.


There's no "infinite past" problem.

Okay. So when did the universe begin? *Pst, I've already given the answer if you need to look it up. I posted it several pages ago*


What do we know about matter and energy? We're basically grasping at the very basics right now. We're still hunting the famed Higgs bosom, we know next to nothing about anti-matter, we still don't fully understand quantum dynamics. And that's at the local level. What is a black hole? What's in it? What happens when you cross one?

I know you're trying to sound deep, but keywords aren't helping. Regardless of what you've posted, we do know that energy and matter are distinctly different, and the two do not merge or transfer. We also know that a black hole reaches a singularity past the event horizon and time simply ceases to move there. So we can easily say what happens when something enters it - it freezes.

So, the bottomline is that you made a 5th grade science error and then went with the "yeah, but we don't know stuff so I might actually be right" excuse. Cute.


The only thing we have are theories and conjectures. It's OK to say we don't know (yet).

Ignorance is presuming you know the answers to all these things, without being able to test any of it...

I'm happy to discuss the things we don't know. We do know, however, that the universe came from an outside source.


It's not that difficult if you actually think about it. "past" implies a point of reference ("before now"). If you can't establish "now", you can't establish "past" or "future". Now the difference between past and future as far as infinite is concerned is that the future is always infinite if the timeline is infinite, and the future is always finite if the timeline is finite. For the past, it depends if the timeline has a start.

Thank you for teaching me the thing I've been trying to have you understand.


And that's because "infinite" isn't what you said it is. Infinite means that it might or might not have a start, but it has no end.

False. An infinite past can only be infinite in one direction, and it causes the present and future to no longer exist if it is true.


To give you a 3rd grade example you can understand, when you put two mirrors facing eachother, the reflection is infinite even though it has a start.

Actually, that's even incorrect, but you get points for understanding infinity.

While your example would work if lightwaves bounced indefinitely, they actually cease between 8 and 13 times. Just a nice little factoid.

So if an infinite past exists, then the infinite past exists infinitely in one direction. And that would make reaching the present impossible. Trust me, I've seen people try to do what you're doing now, but eventually they all figure it out.


To recap, there's no "past" without a "now" point of reference. A finite or infinite past without establishing a "now" makes no sense, and factually doesn't exist.
Now, being that "now" can be any point on an infinite timeline, and that past and future are byproducts of now, there's no mathematical impossibility that the past wouldn't be infinite.

This is also false. Time moves at different speeds throughout the universe, and even moves at different speeds on earth depending on your own speed. Thus the present, past, and future are all blended together in places around the universe like a river with different currents.

In order to arrive at the "present," you have to transverse all points in the "past", and if it is infinite, you'd never arrive at the "present." Additionally, we know the whole point is moot since the big bang occurred, it ocurred at a specific point in time, and prior to it time was frozen (thus the bang is the start of time).


We estimate/theorize that. We don't know that.

Yes, we do know that. We measure the speed of the universe expansion, plus we use the speed of light to measure distant objects and determine age of the universe from the point of expansion.


But I didn't say you can measure infinity. I said you can measure finite time over an infinite timeline. That the timeline might or might not be infinite it's irrelevant. There's nothing spooky about infinity. As I said, it's a normal mathematical construct (yes, I meant construct, damn auto-correct)

"Construction" and "construct" are both English words - it didn't auto-correct it for you.

If the past were infinite (the only way the universe could exist forever), then you would not be able to quantify the past. If you accept that point, I see no point in furthering that issue.


Let me know of this is getting too complicated for you, and I'll water it down a bit.

Have the auto-correct off. It seems to like changing your correctly spelled English words to other words.


English not being my primary language and the fact I already said I'm typing this on a cell, doesn't make me any less of an "intellectual" (a claim I didn't make, btw), despite what you might think.

My point stands - if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, for the love of god spell the insult correctly.


On the other hand, I know English well enough to know you understood me just fine. The grammar Nazi act normally follows the butthurtness of getting your ass handed to you like right now, actually. As most science hacks with a big ego, now that your bluff has been called, you resort to nitpicking thinking you can save any e-cred you might have left. Disapointing, but not unexpected.

1) You're not doing this on a cell as it would have corrected "disappointed" - so that's a lie
2) You're almost definitely a native English speaker as you used the term "butthurtness" and the chances of a non-native using that term is next to nil.
3) I mocked you for insulting my intelligence with mispelled words. Grow a pair and get over it.


If I'm telling you how long it took me to arrive to a destination, the fact that I stopped running (and arrived to my destination) is implied. Which is why the walk wasn't an infinite event and your analogy just sucks.
My analogy with the circle-shaped infinite track is much better.

The track isn't infinite, idiot. It can be measured in area.


Just stop and stick to biblical studies. This place is already full of science hacks that don't really know what they're talking about.

On the other hand, of you want to learn, let me know if anything of the above isn't clear enough for you, and I'll be glad to keep schooling you and your can of whoop ass...

Huff and puff all you'd like.

BL

[DMC]

I'm no science/math buff, but I think this guy's error in regards to infinite regress is pretty obvious.

-infinity <-----0-----> +infinity

Replace negative infinity with the past, 0 with the present, and positive infinity with the future.

If Blue's argument is correct about not being able to reach the present from an infinite past was true, wouldn't that mean that one cannot reach zero from negative infinity?

Is this clear enough? Somebody correct me.
It is much simpler than that. It means you can never cross the threshold of your door, because you can only move half the distance before you reach the next half and so on, therefore according to the infinite regress of the camel's nose and my beard, you are stuck in time with your temples, your massage parlors.

[Blue-Lightning]

If Blue's argument is correct about not being able to reach the present from an infinite past was true, wouldn't that mean that one cannot reach zero from negative infinity?

Begin counting from an infinitely negative number and when you reach zero, let me know.


Wait, I have a twitter account too! Intellectuals love those

Feel free to provide it.

[DMC]

During the quantum singularity, the laws of physics did not exist (or we cannot speculate that they did due to the "lawlessness" -Hawking)

One picosecond after the BB, the temps were so high that it was probably still lawless in terms of gravity and energy. Shit was crazy, dog. We're talking some serious Kelvins, quadrillions and such.

Once the spread happened for a few millions years, maybe quarks became neutrons and protons and such, and maybe some matter formed. 3 weeks later the first Wal-Mart went up.

[redzero]

Begin counting from an infinitely negative number and when you reach zero, let me know.

It doesn't have to be zero; it can be any number. So, tell me how one can reach zero then. According to your infinite regress problem, reaching a plotted point would be impossible, right?

[Blue-Lightning]

During the quantum singularity, the laws of physics did not exist (or we cannot speculate that they did due to the "lawlessness" -Hawking)

One picosecond after the BB, the temps were so high that it was probably still lawless in terms of gravity and energy. Shit was crazy, dog. We're talking some serious Kelvins, quadrillions and such.

Once the spread happened for a few millions years, maybe quarks became neutrons and protons and such, and maybe some matter formed. 3 weeks later the first Wal-Mart went up.

Thank you. It felt good to read something on a fairly high level.

As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.

[DMC]

I am a simple guy. I don't know all about all that infinite span stuff.

So, you admit that something can go on infinitely in one direction?
It's called a "ray".

[Blue-Lightning]

It doesn't have to be zero; it can be any number. So, tell me how one can reach zero then. According to your infinite regress problem, reaching a plotted point would be impossible, right?

Yeah, you can make it negative google. If you start counting from an infinitely negative number and try to get to negative google, you'll never get there either. It has nothing to do with infinite subdivision of points (infinite regress) and everything to do infinite whole numbers (infinite span).

BL

P.s. You had it right with the term "ray," but I felt they would confuse that with a laser.

[DMC]

Thank you. It felt good to read something on a fairly high level.

As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.
It's not unlikely. It's unknown. For it to be unlikely, we would have to know some things about it and those things would have to go against the likelihood of it being lawless. We don't know anything about it. We can do the math on the temps, but we cannot, even using magnetic field support, heat plasma to those temps so we cannot observe that. We can only speculate.

It's nonsensical to say the unknown operated under different laws. They were either bound by the laws of physics or they were not.

Laws are not separate entities that we have to discover. They are deduced by us after knowing the facts. They are theories of operation. There were no "different" theories of operation during that non-time.

[redzero]

Why can't the present be a constantly changing point that separates the past from the future?

[Blake]

Why do you assume "creator" must be capitalized?

I don't. I simply forgot who the audience was.


But to answer to your question:

A) The universe has existed forever -- a mathematical impossibility
B) The universe created itself -- breaks its own laws and has no evidence; seems illogical
C) The universe was created by an outside source -- possible

Do you have any other plausible answers?

D) Matter has existed forever

[DMC]

Why can't the present be a constantly changing point that separates the past from the future?

For there to be a change, there has to be two points. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are acting here as the remote viewer and seeing all three, past, present and future, and calling the present a "changing point".

We are not remote viewers. We are in the now, always, and we remember the past (and can record it) and we can note change.

But you are right about the present, we are a rolling point of now and the past and present are non-existent for all intents and purposes.

[DMC]

I don't. I simply forgot who the audience was.



D) Matter has existed forever
Do you mean "since the beginning of time"? Even that would be false. There was only energy, unless you are calling quarks and neutrinos "matter". Matter in the elemental form took millions of years to develop.

[Blue-Lightning]

It's not unlikely. It's unknown. For it to be unlikely, we would have to know some things about it and those things would have to go against the likelihood of it being lawless. We don't know anything about it. We can do the math on the temps, but we cannot, even using magnetic field support, heat plasma to those temps so we cannot observe that. We can only speculate.

The reason we can know it followed certain brief laws is that it followed a pattern or movement (expansion). Patterns mean there are physical laws guiding actions... if it had been completely random you wouldn't see a universe expanding evenly in all directions as we see now.


It's nonsensical to say the unknown operated under different laws. They were either bound by the laws of physics or they were not.

I'm almost tempted to agree with you just to keep you around since you've raised the level of debate. lol

However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws. If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen). Of course a cosmic error could only occur if the universe is being processed in some way.


Laws are not separate entities that we have to discover. They are deduced by us after knowing the facts. They are theories of operation. There were no "different" theories of operation during that non-time.

You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.

=)

BL

[Russ]

Wasn't sure where to post this (and didn't want to start a new thread).

But, anyway, OKC can play some D!

The Mavs were about to perform last rites on the Thunder (trying to stay on topic), but OKC shut them down the last five times down the court (and scored the last eight points, themselves) to secure the come-from-behind last minute win.

Hate to say it, but OKC may just be arriving folks. :wow

[DMC]

The reason we can know it followed certain brief laws is that it followed a pattern or movement (expansion). Patterns mean there are physical laws guiding actions... if it had been completely random you wouldn't see a universe expanding evenly in all directions as we see now.

You are still misinterpreting the meaning of "law" in physics.


I'm almost tempted to agree with you just to keep you around since you've raised the level of debate. lol
I probably haven't. El Nono is a sharp cookie.


However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws. If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen). Of course a cosmic error could only occur if the universe is being processed in some way.
If we don't understand it, it's not a law. It may be a fact, but we cannot call it a law until the scientific community has established it as such. For example, until Newton devised the theory of gravity, there was no law of gravity. Gravity did not cease to exist, however the term "law' has specific meanings.


You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.
Make no equivocations between laws of physics and laws of nature. I was referring to laws of physics. Flip flopping back and forth between the two can render this discussion pointless. If you are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, that's one thing, but most here are arguing from a standpoint of science and physics.


=)

BL:toast

[DesignatedT]

Put this thread somewhere else. Sick of looking at it. Who gives a fuck what his or anyone else's religion is.

[Blue-Lightning]

You are still misinterpreting the meaning of "law" in physics.

I understand the meaning of "law" in physics, it's just that I recognize there are mathematical explanations for phenomenon... some we have discovered and some we have not. Although it doesn't become a law until we describe it, hypothesize it, prove it, I've always felt that is a very arrogant view of humanity. Let's say there's an alien race that understands the universe much better than us... just because they don't use our "laws" doesn't make them any less versed in physics. I suppose that's the issue (though I'm not sure any superior intelligences exist in our universe since it's REALLY quiet out there lol).


I probably haven't. El Nono is a sharp cookie.

Most of the time, but he's a little over his head at times in this one.


If we don't understand it, it's not a law. It may be a fact, but we cannot call it a law until the scientific community has established it as such. For example, until Newton devised the theory of gravity, there was no law of gravity. Gravity did not cease to exist, however the term "law' has specific meanings.

You and I both understand the meaning, and you understand my point (which is difficult to describe without the term "law"). So there's really no disagreement here.


Make no equivocations between laws of physics and laws of nature. I was referring to laws of physics. Flip flopping back and forth between the two can render this discussion pointless. If you are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, that's one thing, but most here are arguing from a standpoint of science and physics.

Physics are a part of the natural world (as is anything else we know of). This is devolving into a needless semantics argument - we've already established you understood my point, I understand the traditional and specific term of "law" in physics, and there's real difficulty in describing patterned, governed actions within the universe which we cannot qualify into a law or theory. But such is the difficulty of describing the immediate time after the bb in which we're dealing with concepts that often don't have readily known language to describe them.

My last post for the night... have fun,

BL

[Russ]

And now, as if by some divine plan, the Clips and Minny are going down to the wire, too.

Clips down by three with the ball with 4.8 seconds to go. . . .

And . . .

Minny fouls Chris Paul shooting a three!!!!

And Paul misses the last one (this helps the Spurs). :)

Then Paul misses a Hail Mary three!!!

I think Matthew, Mark or Luke would have canned all three and hit the Hail Mary too).

[DMC]

I understand the meaning of "law" in physics, it's just that I recognize there are mathematical explanations for phenomenon... some we have discovered and some we have not. Although it doesn't become a law until we describe it, hypothesize it, prove it, I've always felt that is a very arrogant view of humanity. Let's say there's an alien race that understands the universe much better than us... just because they don't use our "laws" doesn't make them any less versed in physics. I suppose that's the issue (though I'm not sure any superior intelligences exist in our universe since it's REALLY quiet out there lol).

Again, you are misusing the term "law".


Most of the time, but he's a little over his head at times in this one.

I don't think so. I've had discussions with him, he's not even taking a big swing at it.


You and I both understand the meaning, and you understand my point (which is difficult to describe without the term "law"). So there's really no disagreement here.

Your point is that, since we don't know, anything is possible. It's a typical theist point but it's severely flawed. Not knowing doesn't increase the chances. Just because you don't know how many sides a die has doesn't mean your chances are better than if you do.


Physics are a part of the natural world (as is anything else we know of).

Physics is a branch of study, the study of matter to be precise.

This is devolving into a needless semantics argument - we've already established you understood my point, I understand the traditional and specific term of "law" in physics, and there's real difficulty in describing patterned, governed actions within the universe which we cannot qualify into a law or theory. But such is the difficulty of describing the immediate time after the bb in which we're dealing with concepts that often don't have readily known language to describe them.

You say "patterned and governed" as if it's been established to be as such.

Semantics are important in discussions. Without proper semantics we are possibly not even discussing the same things. We have to have a standard we both report to and where we can return to ensure we our watches are synchronized. If your idea of "law" is different than mine, we are an an impasse.


My last post for the night... have fun,

BL
Later

[Blake]

Do you mean "since the beginning of time"? Even that would be false. There was only energy, unless you are calling quarks and neutrinos "matter". Matter in the elemental form took millions of years to develop.

Exotic matter, possibly existing before "the beginning of time"

[all_heart]

If you're not actually trying to change anyone's mind here, then why are you spending multiple hours on this?


And in the typical muslim's heart, they feel Mohammad's words to be true. Pretty weak defense in my opinion.

More coming...

I guess cause this thread is somewhat interesting although it's becoming a cluster... too much dirt kicking.

I didn't know we were debating Jesus and Mohammad just the premise of why we/I believe in God.

[ElNono]

Poke a hole in the argument then. What evidence is there that all matter in the universe self-generated against the laws of thermodynamics?

That's a logical fallacy, better known as argumentum ad ignorantiam

I'm sure a twitter intellectual with biblical studies like you won't have a problem with a little Latin.

So you still dont know that thermodynamics applies to the begginging of the universe, or even if that event even happened. Just what I said.


You did not debunk a false premise. You, in fact, forced me to define the term "infinity" correctly for you - something that high school math students should already know.

I didn't force you to do anything. Let's make clear that if you did anything, it was entirely based on your severely bruised ego.


So here's your question, and we'll see if you can answer it:

1) How is the concept of an "infinite past" illogical with a "present" a false premise?

It's a false premise because "past", whether finite or not, it's a byproduct of "present". You can't have "past" without "present".

I wish I could dumb it down more for you, but at your level of butthurt you're probably going to nitpick any non exact analogy, tbh


I would say that both take faith. I'm glad you admit you hold a faith-based belief.

That makes no sense. I would have faith on something if I attributed an event to something. You have faith that the universe wasn't created out of a vacuum (you find the thought ridiculous).

I don't make attributions. I just don't know, and that's fine by me.


Also, I don't believe in a psychotic, omnipotent, invisible god. So, you might want to find someone who does if you're going to argue against that idea.

Hey, I don't believe in one either. That said, we're not discussing just your theories here. You brought up the big bang and the multiverse and I know damn well you didn't come up with neither of those either.


We know that you hold a faith-based belief, whereas I am more agnostic as to the qualities of the creator.

We know now your ego is severely bruised, and you're desperately trying to attach me to some claim I didn't make (and made clear what my stance was). A sad state of affair for a self-proclaimed intellectual hack.


Yawn.
Another yawn. You postulated that if a creator did exist that he would be transferring energies from somewhere else in order to create our universe, and thus break the first law of thermodynamics. If that were true, then the somewhere else would mean another place exists outside our universe, and that constitutes a muliverse. I was just showing you why that was wrong - I suppose I do subscribe to the idea of a multiverse, just as Hawking and others do, but I don't see it as proven.

Why does it has to be another universe? What's the evidence that energy can only exist in an universe?

Yawn.


What's funny is that you don't realize you are the one who introduced the multiverse concept into the debate, but weren't knowledgable enough to recognize it. Then when I labeled it, you assumed I was supporting it. *eyeroll*

I pointed out the litany of asinine assumptions you made in your claim. I was spot on. That said, I don't discard anything. Multiverse could or could not exist. Neither you or I know (yet).


Really? So it doesn't matter if the things that would be created in the universe are also the things that created it? That's like saying that it's okay to believe the puppies created the mother dog as well. And the comment about energy transfers is jibberish... it isn't science, it's just pretend knowledge. It's kind of like debating someone with a mental handicap. You're not where you need to be knowledge-wise for this debate to be interesting.

What part you didn't understand so I can dumb it down for you?

Yawn


Okay. So when did the universe begin? *Pst, I've already given the answer if you need to look it up. I posted it several pages ago*

We don't know. We don't know that it did even "begin". We have some theories of how that might have happened. Am I wrong?


I know you're trying to sound deep, but keywords aren't helping. Regardless of what you've posted, we do know that energy and matter are distinctly different, and the two do not merge or transfer. We also know that a black hole reaches a singularity past the event horizon and time simply ceases to move there. So we can easily say what happens when something enters it - it freezes.

Actually we don't know that for a fact at all. Am I wrong?


So, the bottomline is that you made a 5th grade science error and then went with the "yeah, but we don't know stuff so I might actually be right" excuse. Cute.

Nope. You made a matter-of-fact "logical" claim that a self-proclaimed intellectual (that would be you) can't back up, and starts on a logical fallacy.

Then I bitchslapped you and bruised your ego.

That's how we got here.


I'm happy to discuss the things we don't know. We do know, however, that the universe came from an outside source.

We do? Testable proof of this?

Yawn


False. An infinite past can only be infinite in one direction, and it causes the present and future to no longer exist if it is true.

False. A "past" doesn't exist without a present.


Actually, that's even incorrect, but you get points for understanding infinity.

Actually that's correct and you don't get bonus points because you don't point out what's "incorrect"


While your example would work if lightwaves bounced indefinitely, they actually cease between 8 and 13 times. Just a nice little factoid.

Time isn't a light wave. It was merely an analogy an intellectual like you could understand.


So if an infinite past exists, then the infinite past exists infinitely in one direction. And that would make reaching the present impossible.

"Past" didn't exist until present was already set. "present" dictates "past", not the other way around.


Trust me, I've seen people try to do what you're doing now, but eventually they all figure it out.

Trust me, I see hacks like you all the time.


This is also false. Time moves at different speeds throughout the universe, and even moves at different speeds on earth depending on your own speed. Thus the present, past, and future are all blended together in places around the universe like a river with different currents.

:lol It's not false at all. The fact that time slows down, accelerates, bends and that he "now" can be relatively different for different observers doesn't change the fact that "past" and "future" are a byproduct of "present".


In order to arrive at the "present," you have to transverse all points in the "past", and if it is infinite, you'd never arrive at the "present."

:lol you can repeat it as many times as you want. It's still a fallacy.
If anything, you've been traveling the "now". Until time travel, that is.


Additionally, we know the whole point is moot since the big bang occurred, it ocurred at a specific point in time, and prior to it time was frozen (thus the bang is the start of time).

:lol "We" don't "know" that. We theorize that's what happened. A plausible theory, IMO.


Yes, we do know that. We measure the speed of the universe expansion, plus we use the speed of light to measure distant objects and determine age of the universe from the point of expansion.

So we theorize/estimate that based on different readings (don't forget the cosmic microwave background). Exactly what I said.


If the past were infinite (the only way the universe could exist forever), then you would not be able to quantify the past. If you accept that point, I see no point in furthering that issue.

Actually, it's not the only way the universe could exist forever. And you can only quantify the past once you had a present. Whether its finite or not.


My point stands - if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, for the love of god spell the insult correctly.

You got the ball rolling with the "I'm an intellectual" charade. Talk about insulting intelligence.


1) You're not doing this on a cell as it would have corrected "disappointed" - so that's a lie
2) You're almost definitely a native English speaker as you used the term "butthurtness" and the chances of a non-native using that term is next to nil.
3) I mocked you for insulting my intelligence with mispelled words. Grow a pair and get over it.

1) I'm typing this on my iPhone, as it's the only thing I have at hand right now.
2) My native language isn't English, but I know English well enough to know you have a massive sore ass right now.
3) Sounds very unlikely that an intellectual like you would lower itself to the grammar Nazi level. So it's probably just your ego being severely bruised.


The track isn't infinite, idiot. It can be measured in area.

For a person running the track, it's effectively infinite.


Huff and puff all you'd like.

Yawn

[ElNono]

As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[all_heart]

These pretzels are making me thirsty!!

[ElNono]

I understand the meaning of "law" in physics, it's just that I recognize there are mathematical explanations for phenomenon... some we have discovered and some we have not. Although it doesn't become a law until we describe it, hypothesize it, prove it, I've always felt that is a very arrogant view of humanity. Let's say there's an alien race that understands the universe much better than us... just because they don't use our "laws" doesn't make them any less versed in physics. I suppose that's the issue (though I'm not sure any superior intelligences exist in our universe since it's REALLY quiet out there lol).

Why didn't you start here and stopped wasting my time?

The scientific process isn't "arrogant". It's based on reproducible, testable fact, because we need to eventually use those facts as building blocks to more knowledge. Granted, it's heavily tilted on locality, because it's easier for us to test that way, and because sometimes some physics laws apply only to the locality of Earth.

If an advanced alien race knew more about the universe, they would know the exact same knowledge stated by our laws, plus whatever additional knowledge they might have. Aliens showing up won't invalidate tested physical
phenomena.

[all_heart]

Aliens showing up won't invalidate tested physical phenomena.

No, but I bet it would make you sh*t in your pants!! :lmao:lmao

[Blake]

No, but I bet it would make you sh*t in your pants!! :lmao:lmao

Not as much as a Rapture would

[mingus]

I took a peek in this thread...and look who is here.

Blake, get laid.

[E-RockWill]

2) You're almost definitely a native English speaker as you used the term "butthurtness" and the chances of a non-native using that term is next to nil.

Right here is where you show your true colors.
You fail, sir. Infinitely...


p.s. Why does it feel like I'm reading a script for a really bad episode of Star Trek, The Next Generaration?

p.s.s. As far as I know, past only starts when a beginning is specified. Every moment that is not right now is past. The future has yet to be defined as dependent on the present, but never will be if not once being in the present. Every new beginning comes from some other beginnings end. Maybe it's a space peanut...
Headache yet?

[pgardn]

Why didn't you start here and stopped wasting my time?

The scientific process isn't "arrogant". It's based on reproducible, testable fact, because we need to eventually use those facts as building blocks to more knowledge. Granted, it's heavily tilted on locality, because it's easier for us to test that way, and because sometimes some physics laws apply only to the locality of Earth.

If an advanced alien race knew more about the universe, they would know the exact same knowledge stated by our laws, plus whatever additional knowledge they might have. Aliens showing up won't invalidate tested physical
phenomena.

The process is not arrogant, some people who use it are. The fact that science leads to predictions that can be validated and used in technology is hugely powerful, a truth that seems to escape some who do not like all of the results and predictions when the method is used. So imo some people cherry pick what they like to be the word, and if some of the ideas conflict with notions developed through fear of mortality, those are tossed... or we get the constant attempt to sneak in a creator using intelligent design, etc... and then people who understand the method of science are labeled secular humanists on and on...

I still am at a loss as to why people cant separate the natural from supernatural. If you have to resort to "piff, poff, poof me man", its not helpful in understanding the physical world. Anyone can play invent a theory based on magic.

I think most of the arguments thrown your way are based on we dont know everything and we never will understand everything, which I believe to be true. It is possible physical laws change, but thats something we will attempt to probe using reason, not bizarre theories requiring the supernatural in which basic rules that everyone has to play by are thrown out the window.

"My God is bigger and better than your false god."

[pgardn]

Why didn't you start here and stopped wasting my time?

The scientific process isn't "arrogant". It's based on reproducible, testable fact, because we need to eventually use those facts as building blocks to more knowledge. Granted, it's heavily tilted on locality, because it's easier for us to test that way, and because sometimes some physics laws apply only to the locality of Earth.

If an advanced alien race knew more about the universe, they would know the exact same knowledge stated by our laws, plus whatever additional knowledge they might have. Aliens showing up won't invalidate tested physical
phenomena.

Personally I would use models instead of knowledge. We can make better models that are predictive. But again thats largely semantics that some people pick up and run with.

[ElNono]

I was starting to wonder what was his cop-out for the fact that scientifically speaking his claims didn't pass the theory barrier. As much as he likes to spin around the subject, he doesn't know anymore than anybody else as to whether the theories and laws he adopted are true.

It either involved not understanding the scientific process or bastardizing it. Both involve a certain degree of ignorance. Now we know which one of the two he falls in.

It doesn't take intellect to be a theory warrior, it takes the same faith-based belief as any deity. A-Theory, B-Theory and all it's variations are equally valid (even if ultimately they all are not goin to be true) until you can test them.

The way you avoid the "my god is bigger than your god" is fairly obvious. Understanding that not knowing (yet) is a perfectly valid stance.

[ElNono]

Bump,

Owning fools from my cellphone and haven't touched google yet. As predicted, self-proclaimed intellectuals not living up to the hype.

Har har

[Blue-Lightning]

Again, you are misusing the term "law".

A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions. -- dictionary.com

I've been describing laws as of yet undescribed due to our lack of knowledge surrounding the moments since the bang. Please cease to pretend I'm misusing the term. Also, I used dictionary.com because I used it previously and don't want to appear selective in my references by choosing different definitive sources.


I don't think so. I've had discussions with him, he's not even taking a big swing at it.

He should probably think about taking a big swing at it based on the current results.


Your point is that, since we don't know, anything is possible. It's a typical theist point but it's severely flawed. Not knowing doesn't increase the chances. Just because you don't know how many sides a die has doesn't mean your chances are better than if you do.

This is false. My point is that the universe requires an outside source for creation via deductive reasoning. There is no "god of the gaps" argument here.


Physics is a branch of study, the study of matter to be precise.

Yes. And matter is a part of the natural world... the only other option being the supernatural which isn't accepted by many (including myself).


You say "patterned and governed" as if it's been established to be as such.

As I said, we know that it was patterned and governed by logic because it expanded in all directions in near-equal (if not totally equal) force. If it was not governed by logic or followed a pattern, you would see random differences in expansion throughout the universe as a result. We do not see this.


Semantics are important in discussions. Without proper semantics we are possibly not even discussing the same things. We have to have a standard we both report to and where we can return to ensure we our watches are synchronized. If your idea of "law" is different than mine, we are an an impasse.

This is true. Please use "law" as I and the dictionary use it.


That's a logical fallacy, better known as argumentum ad ignorantiam

I'm sure a twitter intellectual with biblical studies like you won't have a problem with a little Latin.

So you still dont know that thermodynamics applies to the begginging of the universe, or even if that event even happened. Just what I said.

It's not an unfair question, and you failed to answer it. You postulate that the universe came from nothing - do you have any evidence of how that might be possible?

Oh, and autospell strikes again with "begginging." Siri needs to learn to spell for ya' ;-)


It's a false premise because "past", whether finite or not, it's a byproduct of "present". You can't have "past" without "present".

Past is finite because we have a present, and a present requires the transversing of all points past, which is impossible if past points are infinite in span (as DMC explained, a ray).


That makes no sense. I would have faith on something if I attributed an event to something. You have faith that the universe wasn't created out of a vacuum (you find the thought ridiculous).

I don't make attributions. I just don't know, and that's fine by me.

You're right, I am confident that the universe did not suddenly come into being out of complete nothingness without any reason whatsoever. I am as confident in that as I am that a little world won't suddenly come to life on a Gameboy sitting in an attic with no batteries in it.


Why does it has to be another universe? What's the evidence that energy can only exist in an universe?

universe - 1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. dictionary.com

If you say there's something outside the universe, it either extends our universe to that or it exists in another universe. Another universe would mean we exist in a multiverse.


We don't know. We don't know that it did even "begin". We have some theories of how that might have happened. Am I wrong?

Yes. An infinite past is a mathematical impossiblity if a present exists. Furthermore, all time would have been cessated before the big bang, meaning that time did not exist until the explosion occurred. Some believe the universe might go through cycles of expansion and contraction, but they have no explanation for how you cause to time to start up again after complete contraction. Furthermore, that leaves no explanation for where the contents of the universe came from.


Actually we don't know that for a fact at all. Am I wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4zlvqOtE8


Nope. You made a matter-of-fact "logical" claim that a self-proclaimed intellectual (that would be you) can't back up, and starts on a logical fallacy.

Then I bitchslapped you and bruised your ego.

That's how we got here.

When you stop presenting information and start trying to pump up an e-penis, it makes the conversation much less intelligent. Please try to do better. It doesn't fool anyone. The above was your response to being completely, utterly, and clearly wrong on a point. Instead of showing how you might still be right, you just switched to ad hominems. This is what irrational people do when they have no intelligent position left. You can do better.


We do? Testable proof of this?

Deductive reasoning that you have yet to show to be incorrect.


Time isn't a light wave. It was merely an analogy an intellectual like you could understand.

I suspect that when you looked up what I posted, you saw that you were once again wrong, and that I know this stuff off the top of my head. You then decided that the only avenue for redeeming yourself if to pretend I don't know how light works. Thanks for the explanation - I'll try to remember this thing you taught me that I already knew. ;-)


"Past" didn't exist until present was already set. "present" dictates "past", not the other way around.

Present was the past and past was the present, so it's a moot point.


Trust me, I see hacks like you all the time.

If only I could be so blessed.


It's not false at all. The fact that time slows down, accelerates, bends and that he "now" can be relatively different for different observers doesn't change the fact that "past" and "future" are a byproduct of "present".

The point is that the past, present, and future exist simultaneously throughout the universe. Additionally, you're still wrong, and here's why:

The present is the product of past events arriving at an occurring event, and the future is the postulated continuation of events.


Actually, it's not the only way the universe could exist forever. And you can only quantify the past once you had a present. Whether its finite or not.

Well, you've put forth a pretty big and controversial idea as a possibility. What is another way the universe can exist forever, and how is it possible?


1) I'm typing this on my iPhone, as it's the only thing I have at hand right now.
2) My native language isn't English, but I know English well enough to know you have a massive sore ass right now.
3) Sounds very unlikely that an intellectual like you would lower itself to the grammar Nazi level. So it's probably just your ego being severely bruised.

1) Go buy a computer, and auto-correct still wouldn't change construct to construction.
2) You said English wasn't your first language in order to excuse your mistake. If you know English well enough to know slang terms like "butthurted," then stop using it as a crutch.
3) I hope those kinds of statements amuse you, as that's the only effect they might be having. They're not impressive to me or any other readers... but if you get pleasure out of them, have at it. In that way, they're sort of like a moron getting joy out of blowing spit bubbles - they're uncouth, but maybe they have value to the partaker.


For a person running the track, it's effectively infinite.

Nope. It can be measured, and it is only "effectively infinite" if the runner is an idiot and doesn't understand geometry.

This would be you.

More coming,

BL

[Blue-Lightning]

The scientific process isn't "arrogant". It's based on reproducible, testable fact, because we need to eventually use those facts as building blocks to more knowledge. Granted, it's heavily tilted on locality, because it's easier for us to test that way, and because sometimes some physics laws apply only to the locality of Earth.

The idea that phenomenon become laws once we claim them to be laws, and are not simply laws we finally began to grasp is the arrogant part. The scientific process itself is rational and immensely positive.


If an advanced alien race knew more about the universe, they would know the exact same knowledge stated by our laws, plus whatever additional knowledge they might have. Aliens showing up won't invalidate tested physical
phenomena.

So despite the fact that they could be 1,000,000 times more advanced than us, they're going to have the same knowledge of "our laws." Thank you for providing a real world example of the arrogance I was describing.


Right here is where you show your true colors.
You fail, sir. Infinitely...

You do know that "native speaker" and "primary language" are not the same, right? Your first language does not have to be your only native language, though it is your primary language. It is obvious El Nono is fluent in English, and his use of modern, slang terms means it is a native language of his. Whether it was native to him throughout his life is irrelevant.

Cuando cambio a español, se muestro un abilidad de hablar, pero sin palabras específicas a un parte de la populación de un país, probable no es un "native language."


The process is not arrogant, some people who use it are. The fact that science leads to predictions that can be validated and used in technology is hugely powerful, a truth that seems to escape some who do not like all of the results and predictions when the method is used. So imo some people cherry pick what they like to be the word, and if some of the ideas conflict with notions developed through fear of mortality, those are tossed... or we get the constant attempt to sneak in a creator using intelligent design, etc... and then people who understand the method of science are labeled secular humanists on and on...

I still am at a loss as to why people cant separate the natural from supernatural. If you have to resort to "piff, poff, poof me man", its not helpful in understanding the physical world. Anyone can play invent a theory based on magic.

I think most of the arguments thrown your way are based on we dont know everything and we never will understand everything, which I believe to be true. It is possible physical laws change, but thats something we will attempt to probe using reason, not bizarre theories requiring the supernatural in which basic rules that everyone has to play by are thrown out the window.

"My God is bigger and better than your false god."

It's difficult to know which side you're taking here (if any), but either way this is an intelligent and correct post. Well done.


I was starting to wonder what was his cop-out for the fact that scientifically speaking his claims didn't pass the theory barrier. As much as he likes to spin around the subject, he doesn't know anymore than anybody else as to whether the theories and laws he adopted are true.

It either involved not understanding the scientific process or bastardizing it. Both involve a certain degree of ignorance. Now we know which one of the two he falls in.

It doesn't take intellect to be a theory warrior, it takes the same faith-based belief as any deity. A-Theory, B-Theory and all it's variations are equally valid (even if ultimately they all are not goin to be true) until you can test them.

The way you avoid the "my god is bigger than your god" is fairly obvious. Understanding that not knowing (yet) is a perfectly valid stance.

If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option. Your stupidity is in immediately believing that refers to a god. That then causes you to fight against a logical statement, based on your emotional attachment to atheism or proactive agnosticism.


Bump,

Owning fools from my cellphone and haven't touched google yet. As predicted, self-proclaimed intellectuals not living up to the hype.

Har har

How does it feel to be the only person high-fiving yourself?

=)

BL

[Blake]

I took a peek in this thread...and look who is here.

Blake, get laid.

mingus, saying you make $80k a month may sound attractive to some, but I'm just not into dudes.

Sorry. :(

[Blake]

If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option.

=)

BL

Your silly arrogance is duly noted.

[DMC]

BL, you are using the known laws of physics to conclude that time is finite and a first cause. What you've neglected to consider is that your method requires the creator to also have a first cause, and so on. That gets you right back to infinite regression.

You arbitrarily allow exemptions for the one you've pushed back one step.

Please explain what caused that which caused the creation of the universe.

Otherwise, you might have to accept that this "different unknown laws" concept you've mentioned means that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, and something can indeed come from nothing (it's important to understand the meaning of "something" and "nothing" in quantum terms). You cannot simply put these lawless characteristics into a law abiding box.

[Blue-Lightning]

Your silly arrogance is duly noted.

Feel free to provide another possibility.


BL, you are using the known laws of physics to conclude that time is finite and a first cause. What you've neglected to consider is that your method requires the creator to also have a first cause, and so on. That gets you right back to infinite regression.

It is possible that the creator requires a first cause, but it is also possible that the creator exists exterior of time (time is a part of our universe and doesn't have to exist outside of it). The creator could be a god, Allah, another universe, something beyond comprehension, a programmer, or a flying spaghetti monster. Could be something else. But none of those necessarily have to be effected by the time we know here.

Hope that answers your question,

BL

[Blake]

Feel free to provide another possibility.

Feel free to source your claim that the only option left is a creator.

A quote from some real physicists that concur would be great, thanks. :tu


It is possible that the creator requires a first cause, but it is also possible that the creator exists exterior of time (time is a part of our universe and doesn't have to exist outside of it). The creator could be a god, Allah, another universe, something beyond comprehension, a programmer, or a flying spaghetti monster. Could be something else. But none of those necessarily have to be effected by the time we know here.

Hope that answers your question,

BL

Why do you assume purposeful creation?

[redzero]

Still want to know how one can plot a point on a line, Blue.

[all_heart]

Still want to know how one can plot a point on a line, Blue.

Let me try to answer. You can plot a point on any line, but what you call that point depends on what has been chosen (or you have chosen) will depend on the reference point.

For example, we say it's the year 2012, because we say we starting counting years at 0 AD. Somebody or some people a long time ago agreed upon that starting point. Obviously time existed way before that but humans needed a reference marker/point to start counting.

Did that help or did I not understand your question?

[Agloco]

Lol, I'll do that after you explain to me how Something can come from Nothing.

Non-sequitur. In no way does my assertion assume something from nothing. Also, before you continue down that track, I'll ask you to rigorously define both words. This might seem obvious, but I invariably get answers which are quite open to interpretation.


There are no gaps to be filled.

The day you adopted this mantra is the day you began to die IMO. I don't mean this in a derogatory tone though. I simply believe that one of the tasks we should put ourselves to is furthering our knowledge (however painful that might be). IMO, invoking a God to play proxy because the rabbit hole is too deep for your own comfort cheats one out of one of life's greater pleasures.


It didn't just merely happen out of Nothing

Sooo......there was always something? Well if this is true, then science should eventually be able to explain things (by your own admission no less):


.......Science can only measure that which exists. In other words, there are no formulas to explain Nothing.

Following your logic, "God" is either something or nothing. What's it gonna be? Either response backs you into a corner tbh. And please do not respond with something along the lines of "God transcends both nothingness and somethingness.....". That would be irrational no?


If you believe in the Big Bang theory as the beginning of our universe, you are still stuck trying to explain who or what caused the big bang.

Another example of overuse. I'll re-iterate:


It's the "what" part of your statements that you don't really entertain tbh.

Determining "what" might have initiated the big bang, or anything for that matter does not require invoking a "who" as the causal event. Someone once boiled QM down pretty nicely:

Shit happens.


My faith in God wasn't the result of a search for the beginning of the Universe. In all actuality, I really don't care how it was created. That's for philosophy junkies to banter about.

You choose to believe without evidence, and that's cool. More power to you. :toast

[Blake]

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Interesting that Jesus couldn't keep track of things that happened on the Bible time line.

[Blue-Lightning]

Feel free to source your claim that the only option left is a creator.

Infinite past impossible:

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2006/05/on-traversing-actually-infinite-past.html
https://webspace.utexas.edu/deverj/personal/papers/worlds.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0010/0010210.pdf

Self-generating universe impossible:

http://asktheatheist.com/?p=935

I'll be honest, I looked for more, but I became sick of surfing through Creation versus Evolution garbage.


Why do you assume purposeful creation?

Why do you believe I do?

BL

[ElNono]

He should probably think about taking a big swing at it based on the current results.

You haven't even scratched the surface that deserves a big swing.
As a matter of fact, you already flip-flopped on one of your claims, which factually makes your argument baloney.


It's not an unfair question, and you failed to answer it. You postulate that the universe came from nothing - do you have any evidence of how that might be possible?

Fairness has nothing to do with the question. I already presented mutiple theories. They're not any more invalid than the one you adopted. Fact.


Oh, and autospell strikes again with "begginging." Siri needs to learn to spell for ya' ;-)

No Siri here. But since it seemingly bugs you so much, you know who to send the report to: bugreporter.apple.com


Past is finite because we have a present, and a present requires the transversing of all points past, which is impossible if past points are infinite in span (as DMC explained, a ray).

Why are you equating rays and time? You don't know we traverse points at all.
Until we can actually test that, your theory is as good as any other.


You're right, I am confident that the universe did not suddenly come into being out of complete nothingness without any reason whatsoever. I am as confident in that as I am that a little world won't suddenly come to life on a Gameboy sitting in an attic with no batteries in it.

So you have faith that's how it happened. Thanks for admittig (again) that you don't know how it happened. You just (again) made my point for me.


universe - 1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. dictionary.com

If you say there's something outside the universe, it either extends our universe to that or it exists in another universe. Another universe would mean we exist in a multiverse.

Why? The definition describes universe as we know it post big bang (if there was such an event). According to your subscribed theory there was no space, cosmos or universe during the event. Why should the rules of universe apply to a non-universe?


Yes. An infinite past is a mathematical impossiblity if a present exists. Furthermore, all time would have been cessated before the big bang, meaning that time did not exist until the explosion occurred. Some believe the universe might go through cycles of expansion and contraction, but they have no explanation for how you cause to time to start up again after complete contraction. Furthermore, that leaves no explanation for where the contents of the universe came from.

Testable proof of this? None. As pointed out early, there's many theories of time. A, B and variations that might or might not include an infinite timeline (and past). There's no "logical" argument or "mathematical impossibility" here. You chose to limit yourself to a single theory and that's your choice, not mathematics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4zlvqOtE8

So we don't know for a fact... :lol


When you stop presenting information and start trying to pump up an e-penis, it makes the conversation much less intelligent. Please try to do better. It doesn't fool anyone. The above was your response to being completely, utterly, and clearly wrong on a point. Instead of showing how you might still be right, you just switched to ad hominems. This is what irrational people do when they have no intelligent position left. You can do better.

You should follow your own advice.

Yawn


Deductive reasoning that you have yet to show to be incorrect.

You already debunked it yourself. :lmao

You deduce from untestable (yet) theory, thus your deduction isn't testable proof. You can spin this any way you want, you have no testable proof of your claim, which makes it no different than any faith based claim.

Yawn.


I suspect that when you looked up what I posted, you saw that you were once again wrong, and that I know this stuff off the top of my head. You then decided that the only avenue for redeeming yourself if to pretend I don't know how light works. Thanks for the explanation - I'll try to remember this thing you taught me that I already knew. ;-)

You suspect wrong. No surprises there. :lol

Yawn


Present was the past and past was the present, so it's a moot point.

Not necessarily.


If only I could be so blessed.

I can see why that's not the case.


The point is that the past, present, and future exist simultaneously throughout the universe. Additionally, you're still wrong, and here's why:

The present is the product of past events arriving at an occurring event, and the future is the postulated continuation of events

The point is that you hand picked a theory that might or not be true then procede to talk in absolutes using such theory as a foundation. Apparently, you're still missing the point and repeating your faith belief over and over won't make it any more true.


Well, you've put forth a pretty big and controversial idea as a possibility. What is another way the universe can exist forever, and how is it possible?

I actually didn't present any original ideas. There's published papers presenting both an infinite universe through cyclical expansion/contraction and an infinite past. You would think somebody that alleges to be well versed in this matter would know that.


1) Go buy a computer, and auto-correct still wouldn't change construct to construction.
2) You said English wasn't your first language in order to excuse your mistake. If you know English well enough to know slang terms like "butthurted," then stop using it as a crutch.
3) I hope those kinds of statements amuse you, as that's the only effect they might be having. They're not impressive to me or any other readers... but if you get pleasure out of them, have at it. In that way, they're sort of like a moron getting joy out of blowing spit bubbles - they're uncouth, but maybe they have value to the partaker.

:lol your opinion on my posting methods, language or how, when and why I address you is entirely irrelevant. Pretending to be talking for other readers is particularly rich.

But it's certainly a good indicator of the massive butthurt you're experiencing right now and how much you value the little e-cred you have left :lmao


Nope. It can be measured, and it is only "effectively infinite" if the runner is an idiot and doesn't understand geometry.

This would be you.

What's the length of the track? crofl


More coming

You already admitted you don't know... and that your belief is entirely based on faith... Not "logic", not "deduction", not "math"... Faith.

I think we're done here.

[DrSteffo]

So ElNono & co won but we still don't know if there is a God, a number of Easter Bunnies, or whatever but maybe it would not be expected that these questions would be resolved in a basketball forum.

[ElNono]

So ElNono & co won but we still don't know if there is a God, a number of Easter Bunnies, or whatever but maybe it would not be expected that these questions would be resolved in a basketball forum.

Nature of the beast...

[YoMamaIsCallin]

FOR THE LOVE OF <some deity or your ancestors or the goodness of mankind> STOP!!!!

oh by the way if you think mathematics has no heart, check this out (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?_=1323202787816&i=(sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200*x)%2Bsqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)%5E0.01%2C+sqrt(9-x%5E2)%2C+-sqrt(9-x%5E2)&fp=1&incTime=true)

[Blake]

Infinite past impossible:

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2006/05/on-traversing-actually-infinite-past.html



Looks like a philosophy discussion to me, trying to prop kalams cosmological argument.

I tend to believe that noted physicist Victor Stenger shot it down rather well.

I'll read the other links a little later. Thanks.

[Blue-Lightning]

You haven't even scratched the surface that deserves a big swing.
As a matter of fact, you already flip-flopped on one of your claims, which factually makes your argument baloney.

I'm amazed that you didn't name the claim (not really). So... which claim did I flip the flop on?


Fairness has nothing to do with the question. I already presented mutiple theories. They're not any more invalid than the one you adopted. Fact.

I can't find the theories you offered. Mind to copy and paste them?


No Siri here. But since it seemingly bugs you so much, you know who to send the report to: bugreporter.apple.com

I'll make sure to let Apple know their products are mispelling "beginning" every time.


Why are you equating rays and time? You don't know we traverse points at all.
Until we can actually test that, your theory is as good as any other.

Drop a pen. Did it fall? If it did, a series of events has occurred in sequential order.

And no, an infinite past would need a ray (geometrical indicator). I do not support the past being represented by a ray since that would make the present plot impossible to reach.


You deduce from untestable (yet) theory, thus your deduction isn't testable proof. You can spin this any way you want, you have no testable proof of your claim, which makes it no different than any faith based claim.

Infinite past is impossible, self-generating universe is impossible. One can be tested, the other cannot until quantum computers come around (you could simulate the bang with enough qubits). However, even if we can't test a self-generating universe, we can assume it as likely as a virtual world appearing in a dust-collecting Gameboy that has been sitting in someone's attic without batteries for the past twenty years.

To test the infinite past impossibility, simply declare the present to be the number zero. Now go an infinitely negative number and count your way to zero. If you arrive at zero you have proven the theory false. If you cannot count to zero, you have proven it true.


The point is that you hand picked a theory that might or not be true then procede to talk in absolutes using such theory as a foundation. Apparently, you're still missing the point and repeating your faith belief over and over won't make it any more true.

Do you have any evidence of anything having ever come into existence from absolutely nothing? Do you have any means by which this could occur? Even the very idea is ridicuolous if you understand that absolute nothing cannot generate nothing as absolute nothing can't generate (something would need to be there to generate).


I actually didn't present any original ideas. There's published papers presenting both an infinite universe through cyclical expansion/contraction and an infinite past. You would think somebody that alleges to be well versed in this matter would know that.

I didn't say it was original. I asked you to provide a means for it to occur. You haven't. A cyclical expansion/contraction doesn't solve the infinite past problem. Please provide a paper or a book or something that you alledge to be possible so we can have a go at it.


But it's certainly a good indicator of the massive butthurt you're experiencing right now and how much you value the little e-cred you have left

I'm having fun. =)


What's the length of the track? crofl

It's length can be measured from one end (south) to the other (north). It's length can also be measured from west to east or any number of hybrids. Remove a proportional inner circle from an outer circle and you get a "track" (actually a two dimensional loop).


You already admitted you don't know... and that your belief is entirely based on faith... Not "logic", not "deduction", not "math"... Faith.

You want to copy and paste that?


So ElNono & co won but we still don't know if there is a God, a number of Easter Bunnies, or whatever but maybe it would not be expected that these questions would be resolved in a basketball forum.

On what basis do you think their position was stronger?


Looks like a philosophy discussion to me, trying to prop kalams cosmological argument.

I tend to believe that noted physicist Victor Stenger shot it down rather well.

I'll read the other links a little later. Thanks.

When you post again, please give a reference to Stenger's counter.

BL

[DrSteffo]

You lost already. Just stop now.

[Blue-Lightning]

On what basis do you think their position was stronger?


You lost already. Just stop now.

I asked you a question... are you able to answer it?

BL

[Goran Dragic]

:lmao this blue lightning guy is hilarious :lmao:lmao

[Goran Dragic]

I asked you a question... are you able to answer it?

BL
Cool picture, Justin

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1619860125/1320289534207.jpg

[DrSteffo]

On what basis do you think their position was stronger?


All.

[Blue-Lightning]

Cool picture, Justin

Thanks =) I like it - thus why I use it on Twitter.


All.

K... I thought you might have something to contribute.

[WeNeedLength]

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i47/5/3/6/fbz_b28a50f0fcf93baaaa77eccb39d6a10f.jpg

[all_heart]

Interesting that Jesus couldn't keep track of things that happened on the Bible time line.

You can't pick and choose parts of the Bible (a book you probably don't understand or know enough about) to find what YOU feel (there is that word again) contradictions. I would just stop if I were you. It's not an instruction manual.

[Blue-Lightning]

You can't pick and choose parts of the Bible (a book you probably don't understand or know enough about) to find what YOU feel (there is that word again) contradictions. I would just stop if I were you. It's not an instruction manual.

It does appear to be a contradiction. How do you explain it?

BL

[all_heart]

So ElNono & co won but we still don't know if there is a God, a number of Easter Bunnies, or whatever but maybe it would not be expected that these questions would be resolved in a basketball forum.

You guys are funny. So why did ElNono and co win.. because he has more posts here, you know him a little better? He's w/out avatar?!:lol

Say what you what about anybody here, but NOBODY has proven anything. The only takeaway I got from this that I find interesting, is that (IMO) an infinite past is most likely improbable but at the same time problematic.

People can freely choose how, when or why WE are all here in this existence. Many here want to say it was sort of spontaneous event that can or will one day be explainable by science. Nothing wrong with that. Others (including most of the world) choose to believe a Creator is involved. Nothing wrong with that either. Mocking each other for what they believe is rude and senseless.

[Blue-Lightning]

People can freely choose how, when or why WE are all here in this existence. Many here want to say it was sort of spontaneous event that can or will one day be explainable by science. Nothing wrong with that. Others (including most of the world) choose to believe a Creator is involved. Nothing wrong with that either. Mocking each other for what they believe is rude and senseless.

Well said.

BL

[all_heart]

It does appear to be a contradiction. How do you explain it?

BL

I'm not a Bible scholar, but I do know the Bible can be hard to interpret and NOT explained very easily. I also know Blake shouldn't be stringing together Bible verses from different Books of the Bible (written by different people) to come up with a "zinger".

EDITED for Blake.

[Blake]

You can't pick and choose parts of the Bible (a book you probably don't understand or know enough about) to find what YOU feel (there is that word again) contradictions.

I think it's very clearly a contradiction.

If you don't, it would be great to hear your explanation as to why it's not.

Thanks.


I would just stop if I were you. It's not an instruction manual.

Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth

[Blake]

I'm not a Bible scholar, but I do know the Bible can be hard to interpret and explained easily. I also know Blake shouldn't be stringing together Bible verses from different Books of the Bible (written by different people) to come up with a "zinger".

Rofl easily explained.

[all_heart]

Read post above...

BIBLE=A collection of books containing stories and parables, written by numerous people, inspired by God meant to convey a message. Not EVERY word should be taken 100% literally. It's all about the Message.

Help any? You don't have to answer.

[Blake]

When you post again, please give a reference to Stenger's counter.

BL

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument#cite_note-25

[all_heart]

Rofl easily explained.

Sorry, it should read, NOT easily explained.

[Blake]

Read post above...

BIBLE=A collection of books containing stories and parables, written by numerous people, inspired by God meant to convey a message. Not EVERY word should be taken 100% literally. It's all about the Message.

Help any? You don't have to answer.

How much of the bible should be taken literally?

Answer in percentage please, thanks.

[underdawg]

Interesting that Jesus couldn't keep track of things that happened on the Bible time line.

Jesus is referring to the resurrection - Elijah was not resurrected.

[Blake]

Sorry, it should read, NOT easily explained.

Why did god not make the bible easy to explain?

[all_heart]

How much of the bible should be taken literally?

Answer in percentage please, thanks.

Sorry, you are asking the wrong person. I'm about the Message. I'm just trying to explain to you why it's not a good idea to be putting different verses of the Bible against one another. This is why people read and study the Bible in private, in sessions and ask people who can give better answers.

[Blake]

Jesus is referring to the resurrection - Elijah was not resurrected.

Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after his resurrection.

[all_heart]

Why did god not make the bible easy to explain?

Good question, I think cause it was written over hundreds of years by different people. It's not meant to be read like a novel. Frustrating I know, but maybe it's more rewarding to have to work and study it to find your inspiration.

[Blake]

Sorry, you are asking the wrong person. I'm about the Message. I'm just trying to explain to you why it's not a good idea to be putting different verses of the Bible against one another. This is why people read and study the Bible in private, in sessions and ask people who can give better answers.

It's pretty easy to tell that you are ill equipped to handle these questions.

Funny you admit to it, and yet you still try.

[Blake]

Good question, I think cause it was written over hundreds of years by different people. It's not meant to be read like a novel. Frustrating I know, but maybe it's more rewarding to have to work and study it to find your inspiration.

If the bible is divinely inspired and god is omnipotent and truly wants everyone to go to heaven, then it should be extremely simple.

[Blue-Lightning]

Blake, from the Wikipedia article you posted:

Stenger has argued that quantum mechanics dis-confirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. He postulates that such naturally occurring quantum events are exceptions to this premise, like the Casimir effect and radioactive decay. Craig responds to this in two different ways: (1) the indeterministic origination of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum is not true creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) since the vacuum contains a sea of fluctuating energy, empty space, and is governed by physical laws; none of which is "nothing."

This is a key point. Even at the quantum level, we never see creatio ex nihilo, little alone at the level needed for all contents and phenomenon in the entire universe. Stenger's argument is therefore easily dismissed since his point rests on the idea of creatio ex nihilo being an observable action.

BL

[ChumpDumper]

If the bible is divinely inspired and god is omnipotent and truly wants everyone to go to heaven, then it should be extremely simple.I posted that as you to prove we aren't the same person.

[Blake]

Blake, from the Wikipedia article you posted:

Stenger has argued that quantum mechanics dis-confirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. He postulates that such naturally occurring quantum events are exceptions to this premise, like the Casimir effect and radioactive decay. Craig responds to this in two different ways: (1) the indeterministic origination of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum is not true creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) since the vacuum contains a sea of fluctuating energy, empty space, and is governed by physical laws; none of which is "nothing."

This is a key point. Even at the quantum level, we never see creatio ex nihilo, little alone at the level needed for all contents and phenomenon in the entire universe. Stenger's argument is therefore easily dismissed since his point rests on the idea of creatio ex nihilo being an observable action.

BL

Further down....


Thus, Craig rejects this as a refutation of premise one. However, Stenger continues that "...Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be...something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation." [26]

[all_heart]

It's pretty easy to tell that you are ill equipped to handle these questions.

Funny you admit to it, and yet you still try.

Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I can't give you a clue. I'll give you another clue, you are not on a Bible forum, what do you expect?! You are asking, so I'm just answering the best I can. If you have sincere questions go ask in the proper forum.

[Blake]

I posted that as you to prove we aren't the same person.

Smh

[underdawg]

Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after his resurrection.

exactly

I'm being lazy (short on time), but here from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus):

The Ascension of Jesus (anglicized from the Vulgate Latin Acts 1:9-11 section title: Ascensio Iesu) is the Christian teaching found in the New Testament that the resurrected Jesus was taken up to heaven in his resurrected body,[Acts 1:9-11] in the presence of eleven of his apostles, occurring 40 days after the resurrection. In the biblical narrative, an angel tells the watching disciples that Jesus' second coming will take place in the same manner as his ascension.[1]

The Ascension of Jesus is professed in the Nicene Creed and in the Apostles' Creed. The Ascension implies Jesus' humanity being taken into Heaven.[2] The Feast of the Ascension, celebrated on the 40th day of Easter (always a Thursday), is one of the chief feasts of the Christian year.[2] The feast dates back at least to the later 4th century, as is widely attested.[2]

The account of Jesus ascending bodily into the clouds is given fully only in the Acts of the Apostles, but is briefly described also in the Gospel of Luke (often considered to be by the same author, see Luke-Acts) at 24:50–53 and in the ending of Mark 16 at 16:19.

[Blake]

Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I can't give you a clue. I'll give you another clue, you are not on a Bible forum, what do you expect?! You are asking, so I'm just answering the best I can. If you have sincere questions go ask in the proper forum.

If you admit to not knowing shit, then why are you even attempting to answer the questions?

[Blake]

exactly

Agreed

[Blue-Lightning]

Thus, Craig rejects this as a refutation of premise one. However, Stenger continues that "...Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be...something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation."

Since I don't care if it was predetermined or not, that point wouldn't effect my position (I've never said it must or should be predetermined). That's why I left it out - it's irrelevant unless you think the creator must have predetermined the creation somehow.


If you admit to not knowing shit, then why are you even attempting to answer the questions?

Nobody's omniscient, take it easy on him. You'd get much further if you were less condescending (yeah, I know I dish it out when I it's given to me).

BL

[ElNono]

You guys are funny. So why did ElNono and co win.. because he has more posts here, you know him a little better? He's w/out avatar?!:lol

Say what you what about anybody here, but NOBODY has proven anything

Actually, I proved that despite of riding the intellectual high horse, his entire premise was based on faith and opinion, no different than yours or anybody else. His weak attempt to pass it as a "logical" problem was exposed for what it is, a fraud.

Basically, his can of whoop ass was returned to sender, with a nice turd on the side. :lmao

Mission accomplished.

[all_heart]

If you admit to not knowing shit, then why are you even attempting to answer the questions?

Like I already said I'm trying to give your ass a clue! I obviously know more than you. I can't give you directions all the way to Uranus, but I can get you started in the right direction. You've made easy to spot incorrect assumptions about the Bible, but yet you want direct consul from the Pope..

Get over yourself.

[Blake]

Since I don't care if it was predetermined or not, that point wouldn't effect my position (I've never said it must or should be predetermined). That's why I left it out - it's irrelevant unless you think the creator must have predetermined the creation somehow.

Accidental or random creation?


Nobody's omniscient, take it easy on him. You'd get much further if you were less condescending (yeah, I know I dish it out when I it's given to me).

BL

I pre-determined about how far I would get. In this case, i just wanted to see someone try.

[all_heart]

Actually, I proved that despite of riding the intellectual high horse, his entire premise was based on faith and opinion, no different than yours or anybody else. His weak attempt to pass it as a "logical" problem was exposed for what it is, a fraud.

Basically, his can of whoop ass was returned to sender, with a nice turd on the side. :lmao

Mission accomplished.

Sorry dude, you have proven jack and/or accomplished jack. The only thing you've proven is that you like to "hear yourself talk" and pat your own back. It's sooo easy to see that.

You too should get over yourself.

[ElNono]

Sorry dude, you have proven jack and/or accomplished jack. The only thing you've proven is that you like to "hear yourself talk" and pat your own back. It's sooo easy to see that.

You too should get over yourself.

Why?

[all_heart]

I pre-determined about how far I would get. In this case, i just wanted to see someone try.

Oh sure that's what you were doing.. whatever homie.

[all_heart]

Why?


Because you sound like ass and you are not impressing anybody. But on the other hand if it makes you feel better...it's the internet right? Hopefully you are not like this in "real life" cause most people don't like that type of attitude.

[ElNono]

Because you sound like ass and you are not impressing anybody. But on the other hand if it makes you feel better...it's the internet right? Hopefully you are not like this in "real life" cause most people don't like that type of attitude.

I'm not here to impress.

[Blake]

Like I already said I'm trying to give your ass a clue! I obviously know more than you. I can't give you directions all the way to Uranus, but I can get you started in the right direction. You've made easy to spot incorrect assumptions about the Bible, but yet you want direct consul from the Pope..

Get over yourself.

You've made it clear that you don't know much. Again, why are you trying to answer if you don't?

Get over your butthurt. Turn your other cheek and move on, imo.

[all_heart]

I'm not here to impress.

That's quite obvious.

[Blake]

Oh sure that's what you were doing.. whatever homie.

Rofl

What is it that you've been doing here?

[Blake]

That's quite obvious.

Just like Jesus would zing!

[all_heart]

You've made it clear that you don't know much. Again, why are you trying to answer if you don't?

Get over your butthurt. Turn your other cheek and move on, imo.

You've made it clear that you have no reading comprehension skills since you keep asking me the same question over and over. You've also made it clear you don't take kindly to friendly help when YOU are the one asking questions.

IMO, you need to work on your people skills.

[all_heart]

Rofl

What is it that you've been doing here?

Probably wasting my time, what else?

[Blake]

You've made it clear that you have no reading comprehension skills since you keep asking me the same question over and over. You've also made it clear you don't take kindly to friendly help when YOU are the one asking questions.

You made assertions you couldn't back up, and when pressed, told me to go elsewhere.

Honestly, you and your gross lack of Bible knowledge were of no help.


IMO, you need to work on your people skills.

You could avoid butthurt by simply not answering questions that are over your head, tbh.

[Blake]

Probably wasting my time, what else?

I can see that. You seem pretty close minded.

[all_heart]

You made assertions you couldn't back up, and when pressed, told me to go elsewhere.

Honestly, you and your gross lack of Bible knowledge were of no help.



You could avoid butthurt by simply not answering questions that are over your head, tbh.

Really what assertions did I make? What I did tell you I told you with good confidence. Do some research.

First you ask questions, then you say you were just "fishing" cause you already knew what to expect. Now your butt is all hurt cause I was no help?!

You could avoid butthurt by not asking questions in the first place. Especially when all you want to do is shoot down any responses you receive. You do know that nobody here is a Biblical scholar right? So why even bother to ask?

[all_heart]

I can see that. You seem pretty close minded.

Looks who's talking. I'm not close minded, but I know BS when I see it.

[Blue-Lightning]

Actually, I proved that despite of riding the intellectual high horse, his entire premise was based on faith and opinion, no different than yours or anybody else. His weak attempt to pass it as a "logical" problem was exposed for what it is, a fraud.

I've asked you repeatedly to copy and paste where this happened. You haven't. It didn't occur, and you're badly mistaken. If it occurred, copy and paste it.


Accidental or random creation?

Could be either, could be purposeful, could be a chain reaction from another universe. Plenty of options there.

In all honesty, I don't even agree with All_heart on most things, but you guys are ridiculous. You basically just go around saying the word "butthurt," goading people like a couple of twats. Seriously, at least get your own shitty catchphrases instead of sharing one.

Yeesh...

BL

[DMC]

Feel free to provide another possibility.



It is possible that the creator requires a first cause, but it is also possible that the creator exists exterior of time (time is a part of our universe and doesn't have to exist outside of it).
Special pleading. What physics laws allow for an act to occur outside of time?

If the prime mover can be timeless, why can't matter and energy be timeless? You're, once again, pushing the problem back one place to the unknown, aka the god of the gaps.

The creator could be a god, Allah, another universe, something beyond comprehension, a programmer, or a flying spaghetti monster. Could be something else. But none of those necessarily have to be effected by the time we know here.

Hope that answers your question,

BL
No it doesn't. It's a cop out way of saying "no one knows, ergo a creator is necessary"

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, as is special pleading (accepting timelessness in a creator but rejecting infinity in time).

Seriously, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, and that's what you are trying to do. If you want to say "I don't know", most of us can accept that. If you want to say "I believe God created the Universe", we can accept that (as it's your belief), but when you try to use science and physics to prove a non sequitur outcome, you're losing before you even get started.

[pgardn]

Imo time is a very human construct.

Time is based on the occurrence of events. If no events take place, there is no time. An invent is some specific physical phenomena. For example, if from now on, no physical events take place, time would end for me. I dont exactly know what this would entail as far as the fate of the universe (atoms with electrons in motion, etc...) There is no before the universe for me using the definition above because I know nothing of events.

If the definition above has huge gaps, or is more complex, then I personally cannot deal with time. Therefore some arguments are hard to follow. It seems we need to be careful with some words as we may not have the same definitions.

[tmtcsc]

I'm not here to impress.

And you've succeeded in that endeavor.

[tmtcsc]

how much of the bible should be taken literally?

Answer in percentage please, thanks.

87.643 %

[dunkman]

Interesting discussion tbh . . .

[ElNono]

As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.

Unlikely? More likely? Wait, are you guessing???

*** wrecked ***

[Russ]

The thing that strikes me about this discussion is how lacking in any moral content it is.

No one suggests that it would be a morally better place (the Universe) if the Judeo-Christian God exists.

No one on the deniers' side mentions the suffering of innocents or the other time-honored moral-philosphical points to be made in their support.

Rather, this is a cold scientific (or would-be scientific) discussion about who is right about some provable (or unprovable) point of argument.

The best ethical arguments for and against the existence of God are ignored and both sides engage in parlor games that rely upon a sterile sophistry that can lead nowhere.

It is a rather cold and unfeeling argument either way.

In this discussion, if you believe in God it is only because he is the head honcho and who wouldn't try to support such an authoritarian figure. It is simply self-interest, survival instrict if you will, to support those who have complete power over you.

Earthly dictators are shown more affection.

On the other hand, if you are a disbeliver, it is not because you reject the apparent lack of moral order in the universe. You simply argue (albeit correctly) that God's existence cannot be proved by any principled intelligent argument and that arguments in favor of such existence cannot be disproved and therefore are rhetorically worthless.

[tmtcsc]

The thing that strikes me about this discussion is how lacking in any moral content it is.

No one suggests that it would be a morally better place (the Universe) if the Judeo-Christian God exists.

No one on the deniers' side mentions the suffering of innocents or the other time-honored moral-philosphical points to be made in their support.

Rather, this is a cold scientific (or would-be scientific) discussion about who is right about some provable (or unprovable) point of argument.

The best ethical arguments for and against the existence of God are ignored and both sides engage in parlor games that rely upon a sterile sophistry that can lead nowhere.

It is a rather cold and unfeeling argument either way.

In this discussion, if you believe in God it is only because he is the head honcho and who wouldn't try to support such an authoritarian figure. It is simply self-interest, survival instrict if you will, to support those who have complete power over you.

Earthly dictators are shown more affection.

On the other hand, if you are a disbeliver, it is not because you reject the apparent lack of moral order in the universe. You simply argue (albeit correctly) that God's existence cannot be proved by any principled intelligent argument and that arguments in favor of such existence cannot be disproved and therefore are rhetorically worthless.

Nice summation and dead on. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. I mentioned earlier that my faith is not tied to the origins of the Universe. It's an afterthought to most who believe in God.

[Blackjack]

GodTalk.

Awesome. :lol

[all_heart]

Russ, the majority of people here on this thread are non-Believers and can't get past the thought that MANY believe in a higher being. Words like pink unicorn, spaghetti monster became used to substitute what most Believers call God. In addition, God was called irrational and illogical and you can see how that argument goes.

[Blackjack]

This always ends well. :lol

You're either tryin to prove or disprove... but for what?

Tryin to make yourself feel better?

Believe what you believe, do whatever it is that you have to do to get thru the day.

If you're a dumbfuck, you're a dumbfuck. No god or science is gonna help ya.

Toodle pip. :toast

[ElNono]

^ Good to see you Black. What's your religion? :lol

[DMC]

Nice summation and dead on. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. I mentioned earlier that my faith is not tied to the origins of the Universe. It's an afterthought to most who believe in God.
Actually, it can disprove the existence of a particular god, simply by showing contradictions. We don't have to search high and low to prove that a square circle doesn't exist. It's a contradiction. Likewise, certain descriptions and characteristics of some gods conflict with other characteristics of the same god. For example, if a god is said to be omnipotent, yet has a longing, that god is lacking in something it desires. A god that's lacking isn't omnipotent. If the god is lacking out of it's choosing, then it's really not lacking. So it's a contradiction. That god cannot exist.

The problem with gods is that everyone has their own, so even though you show contradictions in the Biblical god, their god is separate from that part of the book.

[DMC]

Russ, the majority of people here on this thread are non-Believers and can't get past the thought that MANY believe in a higher being. Words like pink unicorn, spaghetti monster became used to substitute what most Believers call God. In addition, God was called irrational and illogical and you can see how that argument goes.
I think everyone here is well aware that many people believe in some form of a god, unless they were under a rock since birth.

Many of us are growing calloused about adult make believe, especially when it attempts to influence our lives.

[all_heart]

Actually, it can disprove the existence of a particular god, simply by showing contradictions. We don't have to search high and low to prove that a square circle doesn't exist. It's a contradiction. Likewise, certain descriptions and characteristics of some gods conflict with other characteristics of the same god. For example, if a god is said to be omnipotent, yet has a longing, that god is lacking in something it desires. A god that's lacking isn't omnipotent. If the god is lacking out of it's choosing, then it's really not lacking. So it's a contradiction. That god cannot exist.

The problem with gods is that everyone has their own, so even though you show contradictions in the Biblical god, their god is separate from that part of the book.

Descriptions and characteristics are given by man to describe that god. These qualities would have to be proven to be completely true. What if this god exists but man has their description all wrong... then what? It goes around and around...

[all_heart]

I think everyone here is well aware that many people believe in some form of a god, unless they were under a rock since birth.

Many of us are growing calloused about adult make believe, especially when it attempts to influence our lives.

And I can see to how a non-Believer that would be annoying. Good thing it's a free county. Are you talking about the government?

[DMC]

Descriptions and characteristics are given by man to describe that god. These qualities would have to be proven to be completely true. What if this god exists but man has their description all wrong... then what? It goes around and around...

Nothing has to be proven before it's "completely true", many things are true that we aren't even currently aware of, however it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false quite easily.

[DMC]

And I can see to how a non-Believer that would be annoying. Good thing it's a free county. Are you talking about the government?

No, all theists are playing make believe. They've done it for so long that even those who don't have a firm belief often feel uneasy about it.

In this day and age, it's sad that so many adults still hold on to ancient myths and mysticism and have constructed a system of mazes in which to hide their reasoning and common sense.

[Fernando TD21]

So we can conclude what wise people already knew, that the existence of god can not be proved nor disproved and people are free to believe in whatever they want. Invisible guy in the sky, spaghetti monster, the dog who talks to you, I don't care what people believes, as long as they are not trying to force their belief to other people (or letting their belief affect other people's life) and as long as they admit this is based on faith and not reason.

And of course religion is not based on logical things, otherwise it would be science and not faith. Therefore I think religious people should stop saying "I know God is..." and start saying "I hope God is..." when talking about the characteristics of his/her god. That said, it's obvious that the more characteristics you try to attribute to your god, the less likely it is that you will guess it right.

What seems illogical is that people who claims to be "science people" often can't see the bigger picture when talking about religion...

[all_heart]

Nothing has to be proven before it's "completely true", many things are true that we aren't even currently aware of, however it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false quite easily.

I think what you described is called a theorem, which applies in the physical world.

[tmtcsc]

Actually, it can disprove the existence of a particular god, simply by showing contradictions.

You're talking philosophy now, not science. I'm saying that most who believe a deity created the universe believe that it did so out of nothing. Nothing being defined as the absence of Anything (Caps for emphasis), and not the physics definition which allows Nothing to be categorized as a vacuum or absence of matter (like outer space).

Science can not measure or account for the traditional definition of Nothing. So, most people of faith (who give this any serious thought) believe that before the Big Bang, there was Nothing. And for that Nothing to become Something (The Universe), it required a creator to do so.

[all_heart]

No, all theists are playing make believe. They've done it for so long that even those who don't have a firm belief often feel uneasy about it.

In this day and age, it's sad that so many adults still hold on to ancient myths and mysticism and have constructed a system of mazes in which to hide their reasoning and common sense.

Well if that's how you feel then it's your prerogative to not listen and move on. Try not to put yourself in that situation. Remember it goes both ways so it's best to politely disagree and go about your life. It's a never ending argument.

[all_heart]

You're talking philosophy now, not science. I'm saying that most who believe a deity created the universe believe that it did so out of nothing. Nothing being defined as the absence of Anything (Caps for emphasis), and not the physics definition which allows Nothing to be categorized as a vacuum or absence of matter (like outer space).

Science can not measure or account for the traditional definition of Nothing. So, most people of faith (who give this any serious thought) believe that before the Big Bang, there was Nothing. And for that Nothing to become Something (The Universe), it required a creator to do so.

Math does have a problem with "zero"/nothing. You can't divide it, divide into it or multiply it. Adding or subtracting it does nothing. So does that mean "nothing" doesn't exist? :rolleyes

[tmtcsc]

DMC, as much as you find the thought of logical people believing in God to be repulsive, there are just as many of faith who are disgusted at the thought of man being so close-minded as to think a God cannot exist because he can't confine it or explain it through laws of evidence.

[tmtcsc]

Math does have a problem with "zero"/nothing. You can't divide it, divide into it or multiply it. Adding or subtracting it does nothing. So does that mean "nothing" doesn't exist? :rolleyes

That's correct. However zero is not Nothing. It's zero.

[all_heart]

That's correct. However zero is not Nothing. It's zero.

Gotcha.

[Proxy]

Russ, the majority of people here on this thread are non-Believers and can't get past the thought that MANY believe in a higher being. Words like pink unicorn, spaghetti monster became used to substitute what most Believers call God. In addition, God was called irrational and illogical and you can see how that argument goes.

Many people on this thread are of a younger, more educated and modern generation. Few of us, if any, "non-believers" are arguing the existence of god with the intention of taking the source of happiness away from others.

The ultimate goal of life is to reproduce/continue... religion, imo, had a big role in establishing the foundations of human morality. Dogma was a core philosophy that led the way to establish a code of conduct and sense of purpose. That being said, it does not belong in this modern world anymore. It is time for mankind to graduate from kindergarten and move on to 1st grade, leaving outdated ways of thinking behind.

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism. Reproduction is our purpose as a living thing, but the quest for knowledge is our purpose as a human. The goal isn't to disprove of God, but to find the truth.

War, murder, rape, molestation, corruption, and power... a species has enough of this backwards thinking to handle on it's own natural tendency to produce errors and anomalies in the system... it does not need religion to act as a multiplier to these evils and work as control panel over the ignorant. Knowledge is key to reducing the evils in this world; not religion.

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

Many people on this thread are of a younger, more educated and modern generation. Few of us, if any, "non-believers" are arguing the existence of god with the intention of taking the source of happiness away from others.

The ultimate goal of life is to reproduce/continue... religion, imo, had a big role in establishing the foundations of human morality. Dogma was a core philosophy that led the way to establish a code of conduct and sense of purpose. That being said, it does not belong in this modern world anymore. It is time for mankind to graduate from kindergarten and move on to 1st grade, leaving outdated ways of thinking behind.

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism. Reproduction is our purpose as a living thing, but the quest for knowledge is our purpose as a human. The goal isn't to disprove of God, but to find the truth.

War, murder, rape, molestation, corruption, and power... a species has enough of this backwards thinking to handle on it's own natural tendency to produce errors and anomalies in the system... it does not need religion to act as a multiplier to these evils and work as control panel over the ignorant. Knowledge is key to reducing the evils in this world; not religion.

Damn. I normally don't like or agree with Proxy, but he knocked it out of the park with this one.

Well said:tu

[Hoops Czar]

I'm not sure what this thread, if anything, has to do with the Spurs

[Juggity]

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism. Reproduction is our purpose as a living thing, but the quest for knowledge is our purpose as a human. The goal isn't to disprove of God, but to find the truth.


Impeccably stated :tu

[Proxy]

Damn. I normally don't like or agree with Proxy, but he knocked it out of the park with this one.

Well said:tu

:tu

[all_heart]

Oh man o man.. uneducated? Modern generation? Reducing happiness of the faithful... whew...... You couldn't be further from the truth. I mean that with every molecule in my body.

Yes in older times religion did some really bad things, that most modern peaceful religions don't agree with and wish to forget, but you can't possibly think a reasonable, peaceful person trying to live a just life that is also true to their Faith (scammers don't count) can somehow multiply evils like rape and murder. If you do you must be out of your mind. There are so many good people of Faith out there that everyday do good for the betterment of others but apparently you don't appreciate this fact or are completely blind to it.

Modern world? We haven't come that far, technology is just an array of tools to accomplish tasks and meet basic needs that have always existed.

The quest for knowledge is just one of many goals for man. IMO peace and goodwill towards man should be at the top of the list. Knowledge alone doesn't make people happy. There's a lot of smart knowledgeable people out there that are miserable. Doesn't matter how much knowledge man has acquired and accomplished, human nature will always exist and find ways to create problems. You also think educated and knowledgable people don't commit these horrible crimes you speak of? :lmao:lmao

Might I dare ask how old you are? You may think you are smart, but you don't' come off very wise... at all. There's a big difference between being smart and wise and a fine line between being smart and too smart for your own good. I don't know if you crossed that line because you really haven't proven you are very smart.

[all_heart]

Hey Proxy I thought your last paragraph was especially funny (produce errors and anomalies in the system) , this is for you. I'm out for the night, my educated ass needs to get some sleep. :lol

w9umxW2RMpw

[underdawg]

Damn. I normally don't like or agree with Proxy, but he knocked it out of the park with this one.

Well said:tu

I would have to disagree. There's nothing to say that as religion has declined in America, there's less greed, crime, hate, etc. If anything there's more.

There is evidence that the family as a whole has declined in America and I don't see how changing or watering down Christianity or any religion for that matter will help repair the family in the US as a whole. I understand there are stats that show equal or worse stats for divorce among Christians, but for some reason I've never experienced that in any of the churches that I've attended. Most families have support from other Christian families during a crisis and when comparing that to my secular friends and their families, it's not the same.

Don't forget that a lot of the volunteering in the US comes from faith based organizations. 7 of the top 10 charities in the US are Christian based. It's something we're taught in the Bible and we believe in charity as a opportunity to serve a loving God. It's one of the most fulfilling things that I have in my life (even more than watching the Spurs win a ring).

As far as Christians being undeducated, that's very presumptuous. But he's right about Christianity being a crutch for Christians - I'd take it a step further as I look as my faith being a hospital for me and life would be so much harder if I didn't have the peace that comes from my faith in Christ.

Folks can insult me all they want, I've done about as much sin as anyone can (mostly legal) and I don't miss any of it. My only regret is that I didn't know then what I know now.

I'm glad that we have scientists that are pushing the envelope to discover the truth about our world and our universe - any Christian that would deny truth is contrary to the teachings of Christ, but I've seen nothing yet that would overcome my own discoveries of my faith. With that said - God bless y'all and try to be fair and considerate to anyone that has a different belief than you.:toast

[Proxy]

Oh man o man.. uneducated? Modern generation? Reducing happiness of the faithful... whew...... You couldn't be further from the truth. I mean that with every molecule in my body.

Yes in older times religion did some really bad things, that most modern peaceful religions don't agree with and wish to forget, but you can't possibly think a reasonable, peaceful person trying to live a just life that is also true to their Faith (scammers don't count) can somehow multiply evils like rape and murder. If you do you must be out of your mind. There are so many good people of Faith out there that everyday do good for the betterment of others but apparently you don't appreciate this fact or are completely blind to it.

Modern world? We haven't come that far, technology is just an array of tools to accomplish tasks and meet basic needs that have always existed.

The quest for knowledge is just one of many goals for man. IMO peace and goodwill towards man should be at the top of the list. Knowledge alone doesn't make people happy. There's a lot of smart knowledgeable people out there that are miserable. Doesn't matter how much knowledge man has acquired and accomplished, human nature will always exist and find ways to create problems. You also think educated and knowledgable people don't commit these horrible crimes you speak of? :lmao:lmao

Might I dare ask how old you are? You may think you are smart, but you don't' come off very wise... at all. There's a big difference between being smart and wise and a fine line between being smart and too smart for your own good. I don't know if you crossed that line because you really haven't proven you are very smart.

Priests molesting young boys. War in the middle east. War justified by said deity.

Modern: Of or relating to recent times or the present

Knowledge is understanding. Tell me what else can lead a person out of true depression to true happiness. Anything else is a temporary facade. Morality is a human creation. There will always be said evils performed by anomalies and errors in the system. Knowledge/education prevents mass support, thus reducing massive wrongdoing by ignorant justification. Isolated crimes cannot be stopped. Things like genocide can be stopped.

And I give you an F+ on the troll/personal attack concluding your overall fail of a reply.

[Proxy]

I would have to disagree. There's nothing to say that as religion has declined in America, there's less greed, crime, hate, etc. If anything there's more.

There is evidence that the family as a whole has declined in America and I don't see how changing or watering down Christianity or any religion for that matter will help repair the family in the US as a whole. I understand there are stats that show equal or worse stats for divorce among Christians, but for some reason I've never experienced that in any of the churches that I've attended. Most families have support from other Christian families during a crisis and when comparing that to my secular friends and their families, it's not the same.

Don't forget that a lot of the volunteering in the US comes from faith based organizations. 7 of the top 10 charities in the US are Christian based. It's something we're taught in the Bible and we believe in charity as a opportunity to serve a loving God. It's one of the most fulfilling things that I have in my life (even more than watching the Spurs win a ring).

As far as Christians being undeducated, that's very presumptuous. But he's right about Christianity being a crutch for Christians - I'd take it a step further as I look as my faith being a hospital for me and life would be so much harder if I didn't have the peace that comes from my faith in Christ.

Folks can insult me all they want, I've done about as much sin as anyone can (mostly legal) and I don't miss any of it. My only regret is that I didn't know then what I know now.

I'm glad that we have scientists that are pushing the envelope to discover the truth about our world and our universe - any Christian that would deny truth is contrary to the teachings of Christ, but I've seen nothing yet that would overcome my own discoveries of my faith. With that said - God bless y'all and try to be fair and considerate to anyone that has a different belief than you.:toast

Don't take anything I said as a personal attack. A vast majority of both sides of my family are very Christian. I care and love them very much, and I would never abandon them. The problems I allude to occur on a grand scale and a speak on broad, non-personal levels.

A lot of what I said can be taken as presumptuous and condescending, but I would venture to say that it can be supported by sociologically supported stats. The reduction of families and crime is something I don't think relates to religious affiliation. That is just human behavior. Divorce rates may rise due to a lack of christian values, but unhappiness with a significant other has always existed. I would hypothesize that crime rates rise due to an increase in technology and security.

Like I said, the scientific community isn't out to disprove God... just find truth. I'm not intending to insult you personally with my stance in this meaningless debate on a San Antonio Spurs forum... especially someone like you that finds happiness in it all. I would never want that taken away from you.

[Fernando TD21]

In a ideal world, religion wouldn't be necessary and knowledge would be enough to guide people in their lives. But the world is not ideal and a lot of people needs religion.

It's obvious that religion has some bad aspects related to it. But if you're going to be logical and not just a "religion hater" you need to acknowledge the positive side of it then compare to the negative side in order to see which side outweighs the other.

Also if you want to keep things logic, don't assume that every religion is the same. And don't act like the mistakes made by a few members of a religion implies that the whole religion is crap.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In a ideal world, religion wouldn't be necessary and knowledge would be enough to guide people in their lives. But the world is not ideal and a lot of people needs religion.

It's obvious that religion has some bad aspects related to it. But if you're going to be logical and not just a "religion hater" you need to acknowledge the positive side of it then compare to the negative side in order to see which side outweighs the other.

Also if you want to keep things logic, don't assume that every religion is the same. And don't act like the mistakes made by a few members of a religion implies that the whole religion is crap.

This would make sense to an extent i suppose if there was only one religion. Unfortunately there are 5 major world religions and hundreds of offshoots. Adding to that is most are exclusionary. Most monotheistic religions are.

What that means is that internally within a group the social control works however when the communities interact you have dogmatic division that is irreconcilable without ignoring major tenants. Christian vs Islam, Islam vs Hindu, Hindu vs Buddhist, Judaism vs all the above. thats before you consider sectarian violence.

I think the social control aspect of religion is vastly overrated when you take the bad and the good.

[Fernando TD21]

This would make sense to an extent i suppose if there was only one religion. Unfortunately there are 5 major world religions and hundreds of offshoots. Adding to that is most are exclusionary. Most monotheistic religions are.

What that means is that internally within a group the social control works however when the communities interact you have dogmatic division that is irreconcilable without ignoring major tenants. Christian vs Islam, Islam vs Hindu, Hindu vs Buddhist, Judaism vs all the above. thats before you consider sectarian violence.

I think the social control aspect of religion is vastly overrated when you take the bad and the good.
I agree with you regarding the problems that can originate when one religion gets in conflict with another. Which is why I said in a previous post, that I'm ok with religion as long as people don't try to force their beliefs to other people.

I'm not a religion expert, but I believe that most of these religions promote peace. The fact that people believe in different gods shouldn't be a problem as long as people doesn't start claiming that one of these gods ordered his followers to kill the followers of the other gods. Even if that happens, you can't say that religion as a whole shouldn't exist because there is 1 or 2 groups of religious people who are causing problems.

And when something is good but has flaws, the smart thing to do is to evolve, adapt, fix that thing and not just get rid of the whole thing. Of course you would have a hard time trying to convince all these people to change some of their "rules". But you wouldn't be any more successful trying to convince them to change their beliefs completely.

And I think the social control aspect of religion is actually underrated (if this means what I think it means). Of course there are religious people doing bad things, just like there are plenty of people who follows science and knowledge that does bad things. But if we take religion away do you really believe people would behave the same way or in a better way? Considering that this is the source of morality to these people, what would keep them from doing bad things if these moral values were gone?

I doubt that fearing the law is more effective than fearing god, specially in countries where the law is often ineffective. Maybe this wouldn't be a big problem is U.S. but on poor countries there a lot of people relying on their faith in order to be happy and to live their life "the right way".

And just one thing I forgot to say about "science people": you should know that believing in god and following a religion are very different things. Even if one day we conclude that religion is no longer necessary, that doesn't mean people should stop acknowledging the possibility that god exists.

[pgardn]

The thing that strikes me about this discussion is how lacking in any moral content it is.

No one suggests that it would be a morally better place (the Universe) if the Judeo-Christian God exists.

No one on the deniers' side mentions the suffering of innocents or the other time-honored moral-philosphical points to be made in their support.

Rather, this is a cold scientific (or would-be scientific) discussion about who is right about some provable (or unprovable) point of argument.

The best ethical arguments for and against the existence of God are ignored and both sides engage in parlor games that rely upon a sterile sophistry that can lead nowhere.

It is a rather cold and unfeeling argument either way.

In this discussion, if you believe in God it is only because he is the head honcho and who wouldn't try to support such an authoritarian figure. It is simply self-interest, survival instrict if you will, to support those who have complete power over you.

Earthly dictators are shown more affection.

On the other hand, if you are a disbeliver, it is not because you reject the apparent lack of moral order in the universe. You simply argue (albeit correctly) that God's existence cannot be proved by any principled intelligent argument and that arguments in favor of such existence cannot be disproved and therefore are rhetorically worthless.

I think this was addressed but I am not sure.

It has been stated that a moral high ground exists for the non-believer who lives through altruistic acts absent any forthcoming rewards... not going to heaven, I could die if I help this person and it does nothing for me, etc.. One of the "highest" forms of morality is helping any fellow human (relative or not) at cost to yourself while knowing there is no reward. People who study evolution have studied altruism for relatives and see benefit. So it makes sense helping a relative, especially close like a daughter or son, is an evolutionary benefit.

This particular idea puts helping another human at risk to yourself at a moral high.

Either I read this here or somewhere. I found the above interesting. I have (to the disgust of many basketball fans of which I am one) tried to understand where people are "coming from" on this thread. Its not always easy.

[pgardn]

No, all theists are playing make believe. They've done it for so long that even those who don't have a firm belief often feel uneasy about it.

In this day and age, it's sad that so many adults still hold on to ancient myths and mysticism and have constructed a system of mazes in which to hide their reasoning and common sense.

From an historical perspective its even worse than this and I think the author understands this. The crusades, burning witches, stoning whores, yadayada... Some of the most inhumane acts are committed by believers in the name of their God or Gods.

[pgardn]

Many people on this thread are of a younger, more educated and modern generation. Few of us, if any, "non-believers" are arguing the existence of god with the intention of taking the source of happiness away from others.

The ultimate goal of life is to reproduce/continue... religion, imo, had a big role in establishing the foundations of human morality. Dogma was a core philosophy that led the way to establish a code of conduct and sense of purpose. That being said, it does not belong in this modern world anymore. It is time for mankind to graduate from kindergarten and move on to 1st grade, leaving outdated ways of thinking behind.

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism. Reproduction is our purpose as a living thing, but the quest for knowledge is our purpose as a human. The goal isn't to disprove of God, but to find the truth.

War, murder, rape, molestation, corruption, and power... a species has enough of this backwards thinking to handle on it's own natural tendency to produce errors and anomalies in the system... it does not need religion to act as a multiplier to these evils and work as control panel over the ignorant. Knowledge is key to reducing the evils in this world; not religion.

I would say the quest for knowledge is a human trait but as far as a purpose... Our purpose... One might ask why does there need to be a purpose or some sort of goal? I romantically assume there is a purpose but I understand the argument against it.

Imo knowledge can be used as one pleases. Gaining the knowledge and then the capability to make a nuclear weapon that can be transferred easily to a certain spot... scary. Imo science and the knowlege/models it gives us is amoral.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The truth no matter how repugnant is still the truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree with you regarding the problems that can originate when one religion gets in conflict with another. Which is why I said in a previous post, that I'm ok with religion as long as people don't try to force their beliefs to other people.

I'm not a religion expert, but I believe that most of these religions promote peace. The fact that people believe in different gods shouldn't be a problem as long as people doesn't start claiming that one of these gods ordered his followers to kill the followers of the other gods. Even if that happens, you can't say that religion as a whole shouldn't exist because there is 1 or 2 groups of religious people who are causing problems.

And when something is good but has flaws, the smart thing to do is to evolve, adapt, fix that thing and not just get rid of the whole thing. Of course you would have a hard time trying to convince all these people to change some of their "rules". But you wouldn't be any more successful trying to convince them to change their beliefs completely.

And I think the social control aspect of religion is actually underrated (if this means what I think it means). Of course there are religious people doing bad things, just like there are plenty of people who follows science and knowledge that does bad things. But if we take religion away do you really believe people would behave the same way or in a better way? Considering that this is the source of morality to these people, what would keep them from doing bad things if these moral values were gone?

I doubt that fearing the law is more effective than fearing god, specially in countries where the law is often ineffective. Maybe this wouldn't be a big problem is U.S. but on poor countries there a lot of people relying on their faith in order to be happy and to live their life "the right way".

And just one thing I forgot to say about "science people": you should know that believing in god and following a religion are very different things. Even if one day we conclude that religion is no longer necessary, that doesn't mean people should stop acknowledging the possibility that god exists.

if something is not true then it is just not true. You can adjust it so that it is true but then it is not the same thing. i am all for adjusting but i fail to see how you adjust obvious works of fictions such that they are to be accepted as the truth. all too often in that case wishful thinking takes the place of the truth.

and lets be clear here: i am very ambivalent between theism and agnosticism but at no point do i hold any truth whatsoever in any of the world's 5 major religions.

[Blue-Lightning]

Special pleading. What physics laws allow for an act to occur outside of time?

Any act ocurring outside of the universe wouldn't be subject to laws within this universe.


If the prime mover can be timeless, why can't matter and energy be timeless? You're, once again, pushing the problem back one place to the unknown, aka the god of the gaps.

Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


No it doesn't. It's a cop out way of saying "no one knows, ergo a creator is necessary"

False. Provide another possible alternative.


Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, as is special pleading (accepting timelessness in a creator but rejecting infinity in time).

Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / entities may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.


Seriously, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, and that's what you are trying to do. If you want to say "I don't know", most of us can accept that. If you want to say "I believe God created the Universe", we can accept that (as it's your belief), but when you try to use science and physics to prove a non sequitur outcome, you're losing before you even get started.

I have not said "I do not know," and I have not said "I believe God created the universe." I find it humorous watching the naive try to force me into classical, antiquated arguments. Perhaps we're just a simulation on a massive computer? Perhaps we're just a result of another universe's energy? Watching you guys try to be illogical in order to hold onto atheism against a perceived theist is pretty funny.


Imo time is a very human construct.

Time is based on the occurrence of events. If no events take place, there is no time. An invent is some specific physical phenomena. For example, if from now on, no physical events take place, time would end for me. I dont exactly know what this would entail as far as the fate of the universe (atoms with electrons in motion, etc...) There is no before the universe for me using the definition above because I know nothing of events.

If the definition above has huge gaps, or is more complex, then I personally cannot deal with time. Therefore some arguments are hard to follow. It seems we need to be careful with some words as we may not have the same definitions.

We actually don't know all we need to know about time in order to state where it comes from. It isn't a human construct as we can observe the past, present, and future around the universe simultaneously. Review that spacetime article I posted in this contribution.


Unlikely? More likely? Wait, are you guessing???

*** wrecked ***

I am saying that there is a very high probability that the universe reacted in an ordered system of phenomenons in the microseconds after the big bang. We see this because we see an orderly expansion in the aftermath of that event. I would put the chances above 99%, but I'm almost never 100% on anything. That's a basic philosophy point - the only thing one can know for certain is that one exists.

BL

[underdawg]

Don't take anything I said as a personal attack. A vast majority of both sides of my family are very Christian. I care and love them very much, and I would never abandon them. The problems I allude to occur on a grand scale and a speak on broad, non-personal levels.

A lot of what I said can be taken as presumptuous and condescending, but I would venture to say that it can be supported by sociologically supported stats. The reduction of families and crime is something I don't think relates to religious affiliation. That is just human behavior. Divorce rates may rise due to a lack of christian values, but unhappiness with a significant other has always existed. I would hypothesize that crime rates rise due to an increase in technology and security.

Like I said, the scientific community isn't out to disprove God... just find truth. I'm not intending to insult you personally with my stance in this meaningless debate on a San Antonio Spurs forum... especially someone like you that finds happiness in it all. I would never want that taken away from you.

Although I wouldn't agree with your stats and theories on the causes of crime or the importance of religion in the family, I do appreciate the courtesy of your response.

One more thing and then I'm done in this thread - for myself I wouldn't go off of the theories of El Nono or Blue Lighnting, but would instead look at the published works of the scientists that they've based their ideas from (as far as I know El Nono or BL haven't published anything). For me the Bible has given me the most answers, but for anyone that doubts the Bible or truly wants to challenge it or learn more about it, I would suggest the following people with solid credentials and understanding:

Hank Hanegraaf - www.equip.org
RC Sproul - www.ligonier.org
Chuck Swindoll - www.insight.org
John MacArthur - www.gty.org
Greg Laurie - www.harvest.org
Bob Coy - www.activeword.org

If you truly are looking for answers to your questions about the Bible, I would go there instead of challenging someone like me that doesn't know much except that the Spurs will not win a championship with Bonner getting 20 min. + in the playoffs.

[tmtcsc]

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism.

That is a very narrow statement and false.

Dogma and religion have been hijacked by the Greedy for their own purposes. It's like assigning a gun or knife blame in causing harm or death. We don't put weapons in jail or accuse them of breaking laws. In the same regard, the overwhelming religions that advocate peace and love shouldn't be condemned for extremists who misinterpret or use it for their own evil purposes.




Dogma is a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism.

That's ridiculous. Many people of faith seek higher understanding or intellectual pursuits.

[ElNono]

I am saying that there is a very high probability that the universe reacted in an ordered system of phenomenons in the microseconds after the big bang. We see this because we see an orderly expansion in the aftermath of that event. I would put the chances above 99%, but I'm almost never 100% on anything. That's a basic philosophy point - the only thing one can know for certain is that one exists.

BL

BAM! Down the hammer falls.

Your degree of certainty on a guess is irrelevant. It's still a guess you pompous little shit :lmao

You built your giant straw on guesses and assumptions, *exactly* what you got called out for. :lmao

:lol:lol:lol:lol:rollin:rollin:lol:lol:lol:lol

Scoredboard
ElNono: 1
Bitch-Lighting: 0

To celebrate making you my bitch, I shall call you Elsa from here on out.

Now, go make me a sammich, bitch.

[all_heart]

Priests molesting young boys. War in the middle east. War justified by said deity.

Modern: Of or relating to recent times or the present

Knowledge is understanding. Tell me what else can lead a person out of true depression to true happiness. Anything else is a temporary facade. Morality is a human creation. There will always be said evils performed by anomalies and errors in the system. Knowledge/education prevents mass support, thus reducing massive wrongdoing by ignorant justification. Isolated crimes cannot be stopped. Things like genocide can be stopped.

And I give you an F+ on the troll/personal attack concluding your overall fail of a reply.

Priests molesting young boys. War in the middle east. War justified by said deity... of course obviously, like I said scammers, I despise them just as much as you do.

Tolerance and understanding are part of human knowledge and yes they can help people climb out of a terrible funk. However, I'm not so sure genocide can be stopped by human knowledge, people like Hitler and Saddam are/were evil twisted men. I don't think any type of human therapy is going to help them.

I give you an F- for not providing clear intelligent examples in your first post, it's like you didn't even put any thought into it. Sorry if you saw it as a personal attack, I just couldn't help myself as I saw the BS meter go off the chart. Also I'm not sure "anomalies in the system" is a good choice of words to describe bad behavior/actions in the world. The world is not a machine, but I do get what you are saying.

[Blake]

If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option. Your stupidity is in immediately believing that refers to a god.


Accidental or random creation?



Could be either, could be purposeful, could be a chain reaction from another universe. Plenty of options there.

nothing contradictory to see here...

move along.


In all honesty, I don't even agree with All_heart on most things, but you guys are ridiculous. You basically just go around saying the word "butthurt," goading people like a couple of twats. Seriously, at least get your own shitty catchphrases instead of sharing one.

Yeesh...

BL

Twat is a much better catchword than butthurt, tbh.

Yeesh

[all_heart]

I agree with you regarding the problems that can originate when one religion gets in conflict with another. Which is why I said in a previous post, that I'm ok with religion as long as people don't try to force their beliefs to other people.

I'm not a religion expert, but I believe that most of these religions promote peace. The fact that people believe in different gods shouldn't be a problem as long as people doesn't start claiming that one of these gods ordered his followers to kill the followers of the other gods. Even if that happens, you can't say that religion as a whole shouldn't exist because there is 1 or 2 groups of religious people who are causing problems.

And when something is good but has flaws, the smart thing to do is to evolve, adapt, fix that thing and not just get rid of the whole thing. Of course you would have a hard time trying to convince all these people to change some of their "rules". But you wouldn't be any more successful trying to convince them to change their beliefs completely.

And I think the social control aspect of religion is actually underrated (if this means what I think it means). Of course there are religious people doing bad things, just like there are plenty of people who follows science and knowledge that does bad things. But if we take religion away do you really believe people would behave the same way or in a better way? Considering that this is the source of morality to these people, what would keep them from doing bad things if these moral values were gone?

I doubt that fearing the law is more effective than fearing god, specially in countries where the law is often ineffective. Maybe this wouldn't be a big problem is U.S. but on poor countries there a lot of people relying on their faith in order to be happy and to live their life "the right way".

And just one thing I forgot to say about "science people": you should know that believing in god and following a religion are very different things. Even if one day we conclude that religion is no longer necessary, that doesn't mean people should stop acknowledging the possibility that god exists.

Well said.

[ElNono]

More coming :lmao

[all_heart]

BAM! Down the hammer falls.

Your degree of certainty on a guess is irrelevant. It's still a guess you pompous little shit :lmao

You built your giant straw on guesses and assumptions, *exactly* what you got called out for. :lmao

:lol:lol:lol:lol:rollin:rollin:lol:lol:lol:lol

Scoredboard
ElNono: 1
Bitch-Lighting: 0

To celebrate making you my bitch, I shall call you Elsa from here on out.

Now, go make me a sammich, bitch.

There you go again... You remind me of Chip from the Cable Guy when he uses that dude's back to slam dunk the ball..

BTW I don't think it counts if you are the only one keeping score. All those emoticons aren't your friends, so they don't count.

[Blue-Lightning]

BAM! Down the hammer falls.

Your degree of certainty on a guess is irrelevant. It's still a guess you pompous little shit

You built your giant straw on guesses and assumptions, *exactly* what you got called out for.

Because I quote the "cogito ergo sum" philosophical stance in response to whether I am 100% sure about an issue irrelevant over whether or not my original position is valid (1st law of thermodynamics, plus impossibility of an infinite future, equals necessity of an exterior creative source), you just jizzed all over your keyboard. Congrats on proving you are incapable of understanding key points versus ancillary ones. Now go look up cogito ergo sum.


Scoredboard
ElNono: 1
Bitch-Lighting: 0

To celebrate making you my bitch, I shall call you Elsa from here on out.

Now, go make me a sammich, bitch.

I don't have the time to go back and quote every instance in which I have asked you a question you've been unable to answer, or to quote each time you've said something which was incorrect. If I were able to do so, it would take up quite a bit of space. Feel free to spend the time doing the same to me.

Good luck,

BL

[Blue-Lightning]

nothing contradictory to see here...

move along.

I forget that I'm dealing with some people of lesser intelligence. Let me explain:

If the universe cannot be self-generated, and if it cannot have existed forever, then that means there is one option: a creator.

If you ask what is the creator, there are many options as to what that might be, and I already listed several out.

You really could use a neural douching.


Twat is a much better catchword than butthurt, tbh.

Yeesh

You have to use something more than once to make it catchphrase / catchword, shit-for-brains.

BL

[Blake]

No question that religion has been and is still being used to hold back society in almost every aspect except maybe the arts.

[Blake]

More coming :lmao

You called it.

[silverblk mystix]

Many people on this thread are of a younger, more educated and modern generation. Few of us, if any, "non-believers" are arguing the existence of god with the intention of taking the source of happiness away from others.

The ultimate goal of life is to reproduce/continue... religion, imo, had a big role in establishing the foundations of human morality. Dogma was a core philosophy that led the way to establish a code of conduct and sense of purpose. That being said, it does not belong in this modern world anymore. It is time for mankind to graduate from kindergarten and move on to 1st grade, leaving outdated ways of thinking behind.

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism. Reproduction is our purpose as a living thing, but the quest for knowledge is our purpose as a human. The goal isn't to disprove of God, but to find the truth.

War, murder, rape, molestation, corruption, and power... a species has enough of this backwards thinking to handle on it's own natural tendency to produce errors and anomalies in the system... it does not need religion to act as a multiplier to these evils and work as control panel over the ignorant. Knowledge is key to reducing the evils in this world; not religion.

Very inaccurate.

A human being has a purpose in life alright. Here it is: To live.

Simple.

So what if you reproduce and your offspring die before you? Are you a failure at life? No. You still lived a life.
If you never had kids...you still lived a life. A human being isn't responsible for the species to continue.

And who gives a shit about any of that garbage anyway if you are living your life moment to moment? If you truly experience and taste every possible moment of your life-that is human living.

If one ever gets near to this... nothing else will ever matter.

Only people who don't understand this simple thing worry about who created this?...does god exist?...is there life after death?....on and on...

Only people who have never died to the self worry about life after death....only dead people are worried about death. People who are truly alive and living fully moment to moment understand what love is...what truth is...what peace is...

Sleeping scientists worry about proving and disproving theories....

The truly enlightened are too busy enjoying the only life they have to care about the rest of this garbage....

[ElNono]

Because I quote the "cogito ergo sum" philosophical stance in response to whether I am 100% sure about an issue irrelevant over whether or not my original position is valid (1st law of thermodynamics, plus impossibility of an infinite future, equals necessity of an exterior creative source), you just jizzed all over your keyboard. Congrats on proving you are incapable of understanding key points versus ancillary ones. Now go look up cogito ergo sum.

I don't have the time to go back and quote every instance in which I have asked you a question you've been unable to answer, or to quote each time you've said something which was incorrect. If I were able to do so, it would take up quite a bit of space. Feel free to spend the time doing the same to me.

Good luck,

BL

Elsa, you've been exposed for the faux-intellectual fraud you are. :rollin

You're actually much, much worse than all_heart, because you built your narrative hiding behind science, just as much he built his behind scriptures. The huge difference is that under science, testable proof is required. All_heart has no such imposition.

The funniest part is that I just had to let you keep talking until you sunk yourself :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Watching you contort yourself now is priceless :lmao

Scoreboard
ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0

Now go back to the kitchen and get that sammich ready :rollin

[Blake]

I forget that I'm dealing with some people of lesser intelligence. Let me explain:

If the universe cannot be self-generated, and if it cannot have existed forever, then that means there is one option: a creator.

If you ask what is the creator, there are many options as to what that might be, and I already listed several out.

You really could use a neural douching.

I've never seen the word creator used in any real science book of any kind or quoted by any real physicist of note.

Sorry, but your earlier linking to messageboards/blogs does not count as a real source.

Personally, I think an infinite "loop" of big bangs and big crunches in an infinite loop of multiverses is as plausible as anything I've seen or read.

I also think it's clear now that you don't know shit about the beginning of the universe or of message boards in general.

[Fernando TD21]

I think this was addressed but I am not sure.

It has been stated that a moral high ground exists for the non-believer who lives through altruistic acts absent any forthcoming rewards... not going to heaven, I could die if I help this person and it does nothing for me, etc.. One of the "highest" forms of morality is helping any fellow human (relative or not) at cost to yourself while knowing there is no reward. People who study evolution have studied altruism for relatives and see benefit. So it makes sense helping a relative, especially close like a daughter or son, is an evolutionary benefit.

This particular idea puts helping another human at risk to yourself at a moral high.

Either I read this here or somewhere. I found the above interesting. I have (to the disgust of many basketball fans of which I am one) tried to understand where people are "coming from" on this thread. Its not always easy.
I think I read about that in a different thread on this forum. I agree that from a moral point of view, a person who helps another person expecting nothing in return is a better person than those who helps other people just to "get into heaven" or to get any other type of reward.

But from a logical standpoint, the person receiving the donation usually doesn't care why the donation is being made. For them, a donation is a donation. With that in mind, I think that the percentage of religious people who makes donations and helps other people is bigger than the percentage of non-religious people. Since many of the religious groups often pressure their members to get involved with charity.

[all_heart]

Elsa, you've been exposed for the faux-intellectual fraud you are. :rollin

You're actually much, much worse than all_heart, because you built your narrative hiding behind science, just as much he built his behind scriptures. The huge difference is that under science, testable proof is required. All_heart has no such imposition.

The funniest part is that I just had to let you keep talking until you sunk yourself :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Watching you contort yourself now is priceless :lmao

Scoreboard
ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0

Now go back to the kitchen and get that sammich ready :rollin

El Tonto, your own personal circle jerk is getting old and is quite dumb to be honest with you. Just for you and it's not even scripture so maybe even somebody like you can appreciate it:

A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle. - Ben Franklin

“The Greatest enemy of knowledge isn’t ignorance; it’s the illusion of knowledge”

-Stephen Hawking

[Blake]

The truly enlightened are too busy enjoying the only life they have to care about the rest of this garbage....

Are you truly enlightened?

[ElNono]

El Tonto, your own personal circle jerk is getting old and is quite dumb to be honest with you. Just for you and it's not even scripture so maybe even somebody like you can appreciate it:

A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle. - Ben Franklin

“The Greatest enemy of knowledge isn’t ignorance; it’s the illusion of knowledge”

-Stephen Hawking

:lol I have no beef in what you believe or not. My opinion of it it's a completely different matter.

[Blake]

.

[all_heart]

I've never seen the word creator used in any real science book of any kind or quoted by any real physicist of note.

Sorry, but your earlier linking to messageboards/blogs does not count as a real source.

Personally, I think an infinite "loop" of big bangs and big crunches in an infinite loop of multiverses is as plausible as anything I've seen or read.

I also think it's clear now that you don't know shit about the beginning of the universe or of message boards in general.

I think it's quite clear that nobody here knows shit about the origins of the universe, people can propose theory after theory but still can't prove it. What's amusing is that people can't stop kicking dirt in each others faces for stating their opinion. We are all guilty of that.. just some more than others...:rolleyes

[Blake]

I think it's quite clear that nobody here knows shit about the origins of the universe, people can propose theory after theory but still can't prove it. What's amusing is that people can't stop kicking dirt in each others faces for stating their opinion. We are all guilty of that.. just some more than others...:rolleyes

What's even more amusing is how a good(?) Christian like you just can't seem to help himself from judging others

Good stuff. :tu

Origins of the universe aside, I think there is ample evidence available to prove that the Bible is full of shit.

[all_heart]

:lol I have no beef in what you believe or not. My opinion of it it's a completely different matter.

And there's nothing wrong with that...just don't go tell your abuela or else she's not going to get you Easter baskets anymore... :lol j/k

[DMC]

You're talking philosophy now, not science. I'm saying that most who believe a deity created the universe believe that it did so out of nothing. Nothing being defined as the absence of Anything (Caps for emphasis), and not the physics definition which allows Nothing to be categorized as a vacuum or absence of matter (like outer space).

The god proposition is purely philosophical, so it's defeated philosophically. To even suggest physical properties of the universe point to a creator is to invoke a philosophical sense of the numinous. There's no need to look to science to debunk that which is confined to philosophy.


Science can not measure or account for the traditional definition of Nothing. So, most people of faith (who give this any serious thought) believe that before the Big Bang, there was Nothing. And for that Nothing to become Something (The Universe), it required a creator to do so.Science is the study of things, not the explanation of things. The "believe" part in your statement indicates a philosophy. The conclusion requires a philosophical leap of faith that "required" means you understand the beginning, else how could you know what's required? Since you've never encountered another universe's beginning, you are speaking in a purely philosophical fashion.

[all_heart]

What's even more amusing is how a good(?) Christian like you just can't seem to help himself from judging others

Good stuff. :tu

Origins of the universe aside, I think there is ample evidence available to prove that the Bible is full of shit.

It's not really judging others, it's calling them out on their (what I feel) poor choice of words and their douchebagness.

That's certainly your opinion, good luck trying to deal with that. Have you read enough of it to know the message it tries to convey? If so what do you think about that?

[DMC]

Very inaccurate.

A human being has a purpose in life alright. Here it is: To see your enemies driven before, to hear the lamentations of their women.

[all_heart]

Science is the study of things, not the explanation of things.

Seriously?!

I think tmtcsc (and I) knows dam well what he believes and how he derives it. There is no need to keep pestering for more explanation. Faith and Beliefs is just something that others can't, won't or wish not to understand.

[DMC]

Any act ocurring outside of the universe wouldn't be subject to laws within this universe.

Which is why I called it special pleading.


Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

They are now, but if they aren't subject to the laws within this universe...


False. Provide another possible alternative.

That's hardly an argument.


Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / entities may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.

We are always at the present point, and we always have been, we didn't arrive here. The point is what's moving. Although you can draw a conceptual timeline, that doesn't mean one exists.


I have not said "I do not know," and I have not said "I believe God created the universe." I find it humorous watching the naive try to force me into classical, antiquated arguments. Perhaps we're just a simulation on a massive computer? Perhaps we're just a result of another universe's energy? Watching you guys try to be illogical in order to hold onto atheism against a perceived theist is pretty funny.

You've avoided making any assertions that you cannot abandon as soon as the heat arrives.

Atheism isn't something you hold on to. It's easily defeated by evidence. It's like holding onto darkness that's easily defeated by the light. Show the evidence, else I fear I may always be atheist.


We actually don't know all we need to know about time in order to state where it comes from. It isn't a human construct as we can observe the past, present, and future around the universe simultaneously. Review that spacetime article I posted in this contribution.

We only observe the present. We cannot observe the past or the future. Any light we see is in the present, though it may have left it's source some time in the past. We are always in the present


I am saying that there is a very high probability that the universe reacted in an ordered system of phenomenons in the microseconds after the big bang. We see this because we see an orderly expansion in the aftermath of that event. I would put the chances above 99%, but I'm almost never 100% on anything. That's a basic philosophy point - the only thing one can know for certain is that one exists.

What evidence do you have that allows you to calculate the probability of this? Can you show your formulas?

Otherwise, your numbers are coming right out of your ass. Not trying to be snide, but you need to back up your probability statements with more than philosophical ramblings.

[Blue-Lightning]

You're actually much, much worse than all_heart, because you built your narrative hiding behind science, just as much he built his behind scriptures. The huge difference is that under science, testable proof is required. All_heart has no such imposition.

The tough pill for you to swallow is that while you declare yourself the winner, you have failed to show any error I have made, and you've been repeatedly given the chance to copy and paste where it occurred. You haven't. Not only that, but I don't share All_heart's beliefs, so trying to lump me in with him shows that you are very simple minded. What he tries to show with scripture is not what I have continued to show with science, and what I have shown is not related to any religious belief.


I've never seen the word creator used in any real science book of any kind or quoted by any real physicist of note.

Rarely is original cause discussed in science text books since it rarely has any application. Additionally, creator is a word that often carries religious tones, and I used it to watch atheists fight against a logical and scientific position. Despite the fact that the creator could be another universe without any mental facilities whatsoever, or just an event in the system of String Theory, I knew that atheists would assume it to mean God and thus attack it. It's fun to watch unintelligent atheists attack science because they think I'm making a theistic point, when in fact I'm just screwing with their ignorance.

Joke's on you, boys. Now get your witty retort ready to save face.


Sorry, but your earlier linking to messageboards/blogs does not count as a real source.

Provide the link so I can check it.


Personally, I think an infinite "loop" of big bangs and big crunches in an infinite loop of multiverses is as plausible as anything I've seen or read.

I'm sorry you lack the cognitive ability to understand how an infinite past is impossible to transverse to the present.


I also think it's clear now that you don't know shit about the beginning of the universe or of message boards in general.

Sticks and stones until you've got some sort of pertinent information countering what I've said.

BL

[Blake]

It's not really judging others, it's calling them out on their (what I feel) poor choice of words and their douchebagness.

:lol You clearly judged posters here on how smart they look.


That's certainly your opinion, good luck trying to deal with that. Have you read enough of it to know the message it tries to convey? If so what do you think about that?

I've read the Bible from start to finish. Many mixed messages and contradictions, tbh.

[silverblk mystix]

Are you truly enlightened?

What does it matter? Who cares?

[all_heart]

:lol You clearly judged posters here on how smart they look.



I've read the Bible from start to finish. Many mixed messages and contradictions, tbh.

Ok, just maybe I have a little, but it's hard not to with all the non-sense being spewed out.

Well, at least you read it and tried to understand it. I don't think it's something you get on the 1st shot w/out seeking guidance from others that "supposedly" understand it. Do you feel you have a relationship with God? If you did, maybe that's a good place to focus on.

[Blue-Lightning]

They are now, but if they aren't subject to the laws within this universe...

They are. Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.


That's hardly an argument.

I asked you to provide an alternative option when I said there is only one. You didn't though you say there are options. Seems like a pretty good argument if you don't have a response.


We are always at the present point, and we always have been, we didn't arrive here. The point is what's moving. Although you can draw a conceptual timeline, that doesn't mean one exists.

That's not true. My present may not be your present. People on a plane experience time at a slower rate than people standing still. This is especially true when we increase speeds for objects. I'm sorry you aren't as knowledgable about time as I am.


You've avoided making any assertions that you cannot abandon as soon as the heat arrives.

You might say I stick with the facts.


Atheism isn't something you hold on to. It's easily defeated by evidence. It's like holding onto darkness that's easily defeated by the light. Show the evidence, else I fear I may always be atheist.

I already have, but you are too unintelligent to understand. The universe cannot have an infinite past - it's a simple truth, provable (and proven), which you have not been able to counter. You don't accept it, but you have only your own emotional attachment to blame. There is no means by which the universe can be self-generated, yet you'll believe it because it makes what you want to be true... be true. It's faith-based.

Now me, on the other hand, I'm okay with the idea there's no god. I'm okay with the idea that we're chance. I'm also okay with the opposite. But I know this universe was created by something - intelligent or not - and I've shown why that's necessary.


We only observe the present. We cannot observe the past or the future. Any light we see is in the present, though it may have left it's source some time in the past. We are always in the present

Again, not true. Objects moving at faster speeds will experience time at a slower rate. And that's only the start. I'm sorry you don't understand time as well as you need for this conversation.


What evidence do you have that allows you to calculate the probability of this? Can you show your formulas?

The even distribution of red shift throughout the universe in relation to the center (location of the bb) shows us that the initil burst followed an evenly distributed expansion. I say 99% because it could have occurred by tiny little elves sprinking dust to curate it. Mathematically, we can never prove a negative, thus 99%.


Otherwise, your numbers are coming right out of your ass. Not trying to be snide, but you need to back up your probability statements with more than philosophical ramblings.

My ass probably has more cognitive ability than some posters here. I wouldn't want to insult my gut flora by lowering them under some people on these forums ;-)

BL

[ElNono]

The tough pill for you to swallow is that while you declare yourself the winner, you have failed to show any error I have made, and you've been repeatedly given the chance to copy and paste where it occurred. You haven't. Not only that, but I don't share All_heart's beliefs, so trying to lump me in with him shows that you are very simple minded. What he tries to show with scripture is not what I have continued to show with science, and what I have shown is not related to any religious belief.

Dance Elsa, dance. :rollin

Elsa, you walked into the plausibility realm all on your own. :lol

Quoted and laughed at multiple times already. You wrote it.

That your belief isn't religious doesn't automatically make it scientific nor true.
You don't get to define science or the scientific method. However, when you chose that path, you subjected yourself to it.

Your guesses as to what theories apply or not are as good as anyone and are just that, guesses.

You still don't know if the 1st law of thermodynamics applies to the big bang. You never did. :lmao :lmao :lmao

You already admitted, mutiple times, you're guessing (already quoted). And you did it all on your own :rollin

Don't be forgetting now:
ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0

:lmao

[ElNono]

More coming :rollin

[Blake]

I'm sorry you lack the cognitive ability to understand how an infinite past is impossible to transverse to the present.

I think it's funny how you want to pick and choose when laws should be respected and when they can be dismissed.


Sticks and stones until you've got some sort of pertinent information countering what I've said.

BL

I wasn't trying to throw sticks and stones. I'm just saying the more you post without source, the easier it becomes to dismiss your assertions.

[all_heart]

They are. Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.
BL

Why couldn't it be? What if it was some sort of a "fraternal" twin type of universe, created by the same process or mechanism at nearly the same time. Or what if something is "feeding" the "parent" process resulting in very similar universes?

Do you think it's possible that a universe could evolve over several trillion years, where laws that were in effect in the beginning could have also evolved and are now quite different?

[all_heart]

More coming :rollin

Thanks for the warning...

Mods can we get somebody to disable all the smileys?! lol

[ElNono]

Why couldn't it be? What if it was some sort of a "fraternal" twin type of universe, created by the same process or mechanism at nearly the same time. Or what if something is "feeding" the "parent" process resulting in very similar universes?

Do you think it's possible that a universe could evolve over several trillion years, where laws that were in effect in the beginning could have also evolved and are now quite different?

Your guess is as good as his...

[will_spurs]

I already have, but you are too unintelligent to understand. The universe cannot have an infinite past - it's a simple truth, provable (and proven), which you have not been able to counter.

What?!? :lol

What this sentence means is that you've read a vulgarization book by Hawkins (probably A Brief History of Time) and think you know everything about it.

The main problem with that is that Hawkins held the view (as in, a belief) that anything physicists could not measure was in essence meaningless. Since we can't measure anything before the Big Bang (and, well, that's still "only" a theory), then he said that the past was basically finite and started with the Big Bang.

Many people disagree, of course. I'll quote Adler: "Hawking does not know that both Aquinas and Kant had shown that we cannot rationally establish that time is either finite or infinite."

So, now that we've clarified this, I'll let you go back to your useless, belief-based discussion :sleep

And by the way Duncan should have his own religion. That would settle the matter.

:toast

[Blake]

What does it matter? Who cares?

If you are truly enlightened, then you could show us all the path to get there.

It would be awesome. :tu