What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[DesignatedT]

Put this thread somewhere else. Sick of looking at it. Who gives a 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 cons utes 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 slapped 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.

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."

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).

"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.

[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!!

[Blake]

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

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 bas izing 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 slapped 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 bas izing 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.

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?