What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[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 cir stances (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 s 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 cir stances. 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 re ed. 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 re ed," not "specially re ed." 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

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 about

[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/undergra...udies/careers/

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

[BUMP]

crofl it gets better

http://www.crosswalk.com/family/care...-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.

[BUMP]

And yes, I have a degree in biblical studies.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7972910_use...e-degrees.html

The Most Useless College Degrees

Theology/Religious Studies

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

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

This is why theology/religious studies as a degree by itself is fairly useless. ()

[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?
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.

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 re ed," not "specially re ed." 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]

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