What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[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:

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.

[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/2006/0...nite-past.html
https://webspace.utexas.edu/deverj/p...ers/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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[Blake]

Infinite past impossible:

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2006/0...nite-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]

this blue lightning guy is hilarious

[Goran Dragic]

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

BL

Cool picture, Justin

[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]

[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?!

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.