Reply With Quote
Are you truly enlightened?
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:Elsa, you've been exposed for the faux-intellectual fraud you are.
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
Watching you contort yourself now is priceless
Scoreboard
ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0
Now go back to the kitchen and get that sammich ready
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
Are you truly enlightened?
I have no beef in what you believe or not. My opinion of it it's a completely different matter.
.
Last edited by Blake; 03-07-2012 at 11:53 AM. Reason: Mistook who I was replying to
I think it's quite clear that nobody here knows 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...
What's even more amusing is how a good(?) Christian like you just can't seem to help himself from judging othersI think it's quite clear that nobody here knows 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...
Good stuff.
Origins of the universe aside, I think there is ample evidence available to prove that the Bible is full of .
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...
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 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.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.
It's not really judging others, it's calling them out on their (what I feel) poor choice of words and their bagness.What's even more amusing is how a good(?) Christian like you just can't seem to help himself from judging others
Good stuff.
Origins of the universe aside, I think there is ample evidence available to prove that the Bible is full of .
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?
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.
Which is why I called it special pleading.
They are now, but if they aren't subject to the laws within this universe...Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
That's hardly an argument.False. Provide another possible alternative.
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.Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / en ies may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.
You've avoided making any assertions that you cannot abandon as soon as the heat arrives.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.
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 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 presentWe 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.
What evidence do you have that allows you to calculate the probability of this? Can you show your formulas?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.
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.
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.
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.
Provide the link so I can check it.Sorry, but your earlier linking to messageboards/blogs does not count as a real source.
I'm sorry you lack the cognitive ability to understand how an infinite past is impossible to transverse to the present.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.
Sticks and stones until you've got some sort of pertinent information countering what I've said.I also think it's clear now that you don't know about the beginning of the universe or of message boards in general.
BL
I've read the Bible from start to finish. Many mixed messages and contradictions, tbh.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?
What does it matter? Who cares?
Ok, just maybe I have a little, but it's hard not to with all the non-sense being spewed out.
I've read the Bible from start to finish. Many mixed messages and contradictions, tbh.
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.
They are. Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.
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.That's hardly an argument.
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.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.
You might say I stick with the facts.You've avoided making any assertions that you cannot abandon as soon as the heat arrives.
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.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.
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.
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.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
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%.What evidence do you have that allows you to calculate the probability of this? Can you show your formulas?
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 ;-)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.
BL
Dance Elsa, dance.
Elsa, you walked into the plausibility realm all on your own.
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.
You already admitted, mutiple times, you're guessing (already quoted). And you did it all on your own
Don't be forgetting now:
ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0
More coming
I think it's funny how you want to pick and choose when laws should be respected and when they can be dismissed.
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.Sticks and stones until you've got some sort of pertinent information countering what I've said.
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?
Thanks for the warning...More coming
Mods can we get somebody to disable all the smileys?! lol
Your guess is as good as his...
What?!?
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
And by the way Duncan should have his own religion. That would settle the matter.
If you are truly enlightened, then you could show us all the path to get there.
It would be awesome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
