Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Darren Avey on December 02, 2013, 06:51:06 AM
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
-
And how big are his arms and how long is his cock?
-
Does he even lift?
-
(http://bodybuilding.com/fun/big/2006/2006olympia_mf306.jpg)
(http://www.fitnesssource1.com/archive/olympia_2006/images/RonnieC_moses.jpg)
-
If we are made in his image than he MUST lift!!!!
-
And how big are his arms and how long is his cock?
and did he know "ground game?"
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
Wiggs will explain all of this.
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
This objection raised by atheists to the claim that G-d exists - "who made G-d" - has been debated for centuries.
The short answer is that no one did, or nothing did. G-d has always existed. And, No, he did not have to "start somewhere". That sort of stuff applies to you, not G-d.
If you really want to read about this, Google is your friend. If you don't and just want to flame all believers, fergedaboutit.
-
The short answer is that no one did, or nothing did. G-d has always existed. And, No, he did not have to "start somewhere". That sort of stuff applies to you, not G-d.
This is the reply you're going to get 100% of the time.
-
Allah...it's pronounced Allah.
-
what's god's bf % offseason ???
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
you only use a small percentage of your brain power so this might be hard for you to understand, first stop thinking of a begining and a end because there is no such thing, think of time and space as a circle and you will understand that god has always being around.
-
you only use a small percentage of your brain power so this might be hard for you to understand
Humans only using a small percentage of their brain is a persistent myth that is untrue.
-
Humans only using a small percentage of their brain is a persistent myth that is untrue.
Well if you are using all your brain power and you are such a dumbass then may god help us.
-
Too bad McWay isn't here to post some nonsense he would claim to be factual about God and give us all a good laugh.
-
Know Thyself to understand God, this what the mystics,sages and yogis tell us.
-
I wonder what Gods opionion of Ronnie V Dorian is
-
Well if you are using all your brain power and you are such a dumbass then may god help us.
I was smart enough to know that humans using only a small portion of their brain was false. I'm trying to help here. Stop hatin
-
Wasn't it TBOMBZ that said God himself committed suicide when he created the earth?
-
Wasn't it TBOMBZ that said God himself committed suicide when he created the earth?
Something along those lines.
-
Jesus was ripped so in a pre-diuretics era I have figure good genetics ergo God has good genes.
-
I seriously LOL when people dismiss god with the big bang ;D
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
he was made up by some ppl it seems.
i mean, go to the pope and ask him if he can upload a skype session with god
-
I seriously LOL when people dismiss god with the big bang ;D
god could have made the bigbang or be the big bang himself,very good point.
-
Its 2013 i cant believe people still believe in this God, religion,heaven mumbo jumbo and whats worse its not just a few nuts, its billions!! Prove it to me! Go on prove it!! you fucking cant!!! Its all brainwashing shit that you fell for!
-
I doubt you are really looking for the truth, but I'll answer your question anyways in case I'm wrong, or perhaps others would like to know.
Three things are required for the universe to exist: time, space, and matter.
If God created the universe, which means he created time, space, and matter, then he must exist outside of time, space, and matter. You can't create something new if you are already bound by the thing you are creating.
You know the word "universe" means "a single spoken sentence." God created this entire place in a single spoken sentence in Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(time) (space) (matter)
youre not honest there, it doesnt state he created time.
time was created with the bigbang, so if we cherrypicking here, bigbang was before god
-
Its 2013 i cant believe people still believe in this God, religion,heaven mumbo jumbo and whats worse its not just a few nuts, its billions!! Prove it to me! Go on prove it!! you fucking cant!!! Its all brainwashing shit that you fell for!
Please go take some courses in theology. They go through what you want to understand, methodically and logically. I was agnostic in university and still am.....yet here I am understanding why there may be a higher power.
-
youre not honest there, it doesnt state he created time.
time was created with the bigbang, so if we cherrypicking here, bigbang was before god
if we are to be rigorous, we don't even have proof there was no time before. just background radiation that implies a very big explosion. however, the theories that come after that will never be corroborated because not one part of the event people call big bag will ever be replicated.
Is that science? theories that can't be put to the test? didn't think so either.
-
Well if you are using all your brain power and you are such a dumbass then may god help us.
;D
-
if we are to be rigorous, we don't even have proof there was no time before. just background radiation that implies a very big explosion. however, the theories that come after that will never be corroborated because not one part of the event people call big bag will ever be replicated.
Is that science? theories that can't be put to the test? didn't think so either.
im critical to both science and religion btw.
the big bang theory is indeed very very flawed, future humans will laugh at the science pov from today.
-
im critical to both science and religion btw.
the big bang theory is indeed very very flawed, future humans will laugh at the science pov from today.
Yeah both are pretty futile IMO. Religion is made up baloney to control people and science even the top scientists probably know less than 1% of the secrets of the universe. Why can't people just accept that we don't know and never will know the true origins.
-
Falcon please help us.
-
;D
Why you!
-
No one will know until the very end where somebody will come in and yell "APRIL FOOLS" and pulls the plug on us all.
-
Well if you are using all your brain power and you are such a dumbass then may god help us.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No one will know until the very end where somebody will come in and yell "APRIL FOOLS" and pulls the plug on us all.
Mankind will pull the plug on itself, sooner or a bit later.
-
God Botherers will either tell you that God is eternal. Eternity being an abstract concept that doesn't make sense while others will tell you that nothing created God, he created himself, which ironically is similar to Stephen Hawkings explanation regarding the origins of the Universe. Rather than use the word God, he substitutes 'Universe', suggesting that nothing created the Universe, due to the fixed laws of Nature, the Universe was inevitable and it created itself.
Either way the point is moot. There simply isn't one shred of evidence for a GOD. If someone can so easily believe in such concepts without any proof, well, they could pretty much believe in anything. People of faith must be the easiest people on the planet to brainwash, which would probably explain why so many people are indoctrinated with utter crap and propaganda so easily permeates religious cultures.
Why don’t you just be an atheist? If there is a god, and it is moral and loving and worthy of respect, then it won’t mind if people have rational doubts about it and rational reasons for not believing in it. This god won’t punish people for exercising their critical thinking skills and are skeptical of the claims of other, fallible humans. Thus, you wouldn’t lose anything.
And if there is a god who punishes people for rational doubt, why would you want to spend an eternity with it anyway? Such a capricious, egotistical, and nasty god wouldn’t be much fun. If you can’t trust it to be as moral as you are, you can’t trust it to keep its promises and make heaven nice or even let you stay for long. Not spending eternity with such a being doesn’t sound like much of a loss.
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
so did time space and matter, they had to start somewhere too, if you believe in God or you do not you are faced with the very same question.
-
so did time space and matter, they had to start somewhere too, if you believe in God or you do not you are faced with the very same question.
Yeah, but Hawkins has come up with a theory for that, based on humans current understanding of the fixed laws of nature. His theory of the the origins of the Universe, at the very least have credible scientific principles supporting them, unlike the faith based guesses of God Botherers.
-
Yeah, but Hawkins has come up with a theory for that, based on humans current understanding of the fixed laws of nature. His theory of the the origins of the Universe, at the very least have credible scientific principles supporting them, unlike the faith based guesses of God Botherers.
No they don't you retard. how the fuck can ANYONE HAVE A LOGIC EXPLANATION FOR THE BEGINNING OF TIME, how stupid are you, it is not possible, hawkings even says so. there is a point where the human brain can not comprehend the concept of a beginning
-
http://www.maniacworld.com/universe-wants-to-kill-us.html
^
listen to ndgt
Tyson has argued that the concept of intelligent design, thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge.
He has written and broadcast extensively about his views of science, spirituality, and the spirituality of science, including the essays, "The Perimeter of Ignorance" and "Holy Wars", both appearing in Natural History magazine and the 2006 Beyond Belief workshop.
Tyson has collaborated with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and presented talks with him on religion and science. When asked if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:
EVERY account of a higher power that I've seen described, of ALL religions that I've seen, include many statements, with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe, and ALL the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence.
-
http://www.maniacworld.com/universe-wants-to-kill-us.html
listen to ndgt
nothing he says conflict with my belief, nothing at all, I agree with what he says, all Christians do.
-
No they don't you retard. how the fuck can ANYONE HAVE A LOGIC EXPLANATION FOR THE BEGINNING OF TIME, how stupid are you, it is not possible, hawkings even says so. there is a point where the human brain can not comprehend the concept of a beginning
It's called science, perhaps you should check it out some time. No wonder you God Nutters are so rigid and stupid, you aren't even aware of the information available out there. This is what Hawkings has to say on the matter.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going
When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”
Stephen Hawking explained his theory in the documentary 'Grand Design' released last year, to try and explain his immense learning and the theory behind his proclamations. I suggest you watch the documentary before you make absurd claims on Stephens behalf.
-
This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no after life either. We have this one life, to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”
:(
-
It's called science, perhaps you should check it out some time. No wonder you God Nutters are so rigid and stupid, you aren't even aware of the information available out there. This is what Hawkings has to say on the matter.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going
When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”
Stephen Hawking explained his theory in the documentary 'Grand Design' eleased last year, to try and explain his immense learning and the theory behind his proclamations. I suggest you watch the documentary befoe you make absurd claims on Stephens behalf.
Anyone who call this science is ignorant,....
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [/b][/u]Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
OH REALLY ::)
-
Anyone who call this science is ignorant,....
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [/b][/u]Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
OH REALLY ::)
Yes Oh Really! Your ignorance is staggering. Of course that is a infinitely condensed version of what Hawkings has proposed. Rather than spending your life chasing propaganda to support your confirmation biases, you should actually investigate the issue.
Hawking's theories are based on sound scientific principles (unlike yours) His theory stems from his research on black holes, and how they affect time. The closer one gets to a black hole, the slower time moves. Essentially time comes to a stand still inside a black hole. Within a blackhole, time doesn't exist (this is a fixed law of nature). A state similar to the moment right before the big bang. Similarly, if you could go back in time the Universe would shrink until the all the mass became so infinitesimally small that it's properties resemble that of a black hole. What science calls the singularity, is essentially an infinitesimally small and infinitely dense blackhole (a state of no time - again based on a fixed law of nature)
"You can't get to a time before the big bang, because there was no before the big bang. Science has finally found something that doesn't have a cause, because there was no time for the cause to exist in."
As for what sparked the big bang (so to speak) Hawkings talks about this and attributes it to the unique manifestation of gravity. The theory is based on complex science and not the ramblings of simpletons who simply invoke wishful thinking fantasies. Someone like you could never contest the theory because you lack even the most rudimentary understand of physics and nature. Even incredibly intelligent people have understanding the cosmology, and relativistic physics supporting his ideas, let alone imbeciles who base their belief in GOD on zero evidence. I don't expect you to understand it, as you simply don't have the intellectual capacity too as your numerous illogical posts are a testament too.
No amount of eye rolling will change the fixed laws of nature. You can believe all you like that when you jump from a building that you will fly and scoff at those who say otherwise, but gravity will prove you wrong everytime and rational people will continue to label you a NUTCASE.
-
Yes Oh Really! Your ignorance is staggering. Of course that is a infinitely condensed version of what Hawkings has proposed. Rather than spending your life chasing propaganda to support your confirmation biases, you should actually investigate the issue.
Hawking's theories are based on sound scientific principles (unlike yours) His theory stems from his research on black holes, and how they affect time. The closer one gets to a black hole, the slower time moves. Essentially time comes to a stand still inside a black hole. Within a blackhole, time doesn't exist (this is a fixed law of nature). A state similar to the moment right before the big bang. Similarly, if you could go back in time the Universe would shrink until the all the mass became so infinitesimally small that it's properties resemble that of a black hole. What science calls the singularity, is essentially an infinitesimally small and infinitely dense blackhole.
"You can't get to a time before the big bang, because there was no before the big bang. Science has finally found something that doesn't have a cause, because there was no time for the cause to exist in."
As for what sparked the big bang (so to speak) Hawkings talks about this and attributes it to the unique manifestation of gravity. The theory is based on complex science and not the ramblings of simpletons who simply invoke wishful thinking fantasies. Someone like you could never contest the theory because you lack even the most rudimentary understand of physics and nature. Even incredibly intelligent people have understanding the cosmology, and relativistic physics supporting his ideas, let alone imbeciles who base their belief in GOD on zero evidence. I don't expect you to understand it, as you simply don't have the intellectual capacity too as your numerous illogical posts are a testament too.
No amount of eye rolling will change the fixed laws of nature. You can believe all you like that when you jump from a building that you will fly and scoff at those who say otherwise, but gravity will prove you wrong everytime and rational people will continue to label you a NUTCASE.
you call us dumb yet claim nothing can produce the Universe, wow. BTW what you post i have read a million time it does not make a difference wether you stick the word goD in there or the word TIME, the question applies equally, what created time, what created god, same fucken shit, no explanation for either dumbass and to say ''NOTHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE'' IS A FUCKEN SHIT EXPLANATION, I AM SORRY BUT IT IS.
Call me a nutcase but go around preaching that ''nothing'' created everything, real smart ::)
-
God Botherers will either tell you that God is eternal. Eternity being an abstract concept that doesn't make sense while others will tell you that nothing created God, he created himself, which ironically is similar to Stephen Hawkings explanation regarding the origins of the Universe. Rather than use the word God, he substitutes 'Universe', suggesting that nothing created the Universe, due to the fixed laws of Nature, the Universe was inevitable and it created itself.
Either way the point is moot. There simply isn't one shred of evidence for a GOD. If someone can so easily believe in such concepts without any proof, well, they could pretty much believe in anything. People of faith must be the easiest people on the planet to brainwash, which would probably explain why so many people are indoctrinated with utter crap and propaganda so easily permeates religious cultures.
Why don’t you just be an atheist? If there is a god, and it is moral and loving and worthy of respect, then it won’t mind if people have rational doubts about it and rational reasons for not believing in it. This god won’t punish people for exercising their critical thinking skills and are skeptical of the claims of other, fallible humans. Thus, you wouldn’t lose anything.
And if there is a god who punishes people for rational doubt, why would you want to spend an eternity with it anyway? Such a capricious, egotistical, and nasty god wouldn’t be much fun. If you can’t trust it to be as moral as you are, you can’t trust it to keep its promises and make heaven nice or even let you stay for long. Not spending eternity with such a being doesn’t sound like much of a loss.
Believe what you want. Thankfully, it is still a free country. Don't know why you need to be hating on people who believe in G-d. Trying to convince yourself of something?
-
he has managed to convince himself that NOTHING, I mean ABSOLUTE NOTHING can create planets, solar systems, galaxies, hell even life itself and has also convinced himself that thinking this way is science. :-\
-
you call us dumb yet claim nothing can produce the Universe, wow. BTW what you post i have read a million time it does not make a difference wether you stick the word goD in there or the word TIME, the question applies equally, what created time, what created god, same fucken shit, no explanation for either dumbass and to say ''NOTHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE'' IS A FUCKEN SHIT EXPLANATION, I AM SORRY BUT IT IS.
Call me a nutcase but go around preaching that ''nothing'' created everything, real smart ::)
LOL God botherers have since time immemorial claimed nothing created god, he just is and they have had zero evidence for it. I find it the height of irony that Godbotherers can claim with NOT a shred of evidence that god just is, no cause and yet when a scientist proclaims that the Universe just is, no cause and supports it with humanities entire collective of scientific knowledge and wisdom it attracts eye rolls from those who without a hint of embarrassment claim that god is because we say so.
And it doesn't matter if you find something a shit explanation, that's the beauty of TRUTH and fixed laws of nature, peoples opinion on it are irrelevant.
GOD is ETERNAL IS A FUCKEN SHIT EXPLANATION, I AM SORRY BUT IT IS, same goes for religions explanation of just about everything.
Scientist: The Universe Just is, the Universe has no cause
God Botherer: THAT'S A FUCKEN SHIT EXPLANATION
Scientist: Who or what created GOD?
God Botherer: God just is, God has no cause
Scientist: ::)
The only difference between the scientist and the god botherer in the above example, is that one has evidence based on scientific principles on the laws of nature. The other is intellectually lazy and is simply guessing or proposing their ideal based on wishful thinking.
-
God is an asshole , God laid Uberman off.
-
I do not claim any of that. I claim that there is no rational explanation whether you believe in God or not to the origins of time.
you are the idiot that assumed I thought that way as you stated in your last post but sorry to burst your bubble, I do not think that way, ahh you wrote all that gibberish for nothing and went on a rant you Moron
-
God is an asshole , God laid Uberman off.
God took his job, lmao
-
I do not claim any of that. I claim that there is no rational explanation whether you believe in God or not to the origins of time.
you are the idiot that assumed I thought that way as you stated in your last post but sorry to burst your bubble, I do not think that way, ahh you wrote all that gibberish for nothing and went on a rant you Moron
I knew exactly what you said, and my rebuttal was entirely appropriate. Stephen Hawkings has clearly stated the origin of time coincided with the origin of the Universe. The origin of the Universe (time) was the result of the fixed laws of nature. Hawking's has given countless evidence of this based on nothing but rationality (scientific principles). Sounds more than a rational explanation to me, but then again I am not bogged down with delusions and confusing and irrational belief systems.
You just like to believe that no rational explanation as to the origins of time have been put forward, either because you have never investigated the issue, or you simply lack the capacity too understand those that have. Also, it simply doesn't fit with your confirmational biases.
-
if the universe is infinite, how can it be expanding
what is outside of the expanding borders which are actually not there because infinity?
tell me this, non believers
if you can't answer this you are a believer of "science" but not actually know much, just believe blindly
-
I knew exactly what you said, and my rebuttal was entirely appropriate. Stephen Hawkings has clearly stated the origin of time coincided with the origin of the Universe. The origin of the Universe (time) was the result of the fixed laws of nature. Hawking's has given countless evidence of this based on nothing but rationality (scientific principles). Sounds more than a rational explanation to me, but then again I am not bogged down with delusions and confusing and irrational belief systems.
You just like to believe that no rational explanation as to the origins of time have been put forward, either because you have never investigated the issue, or you simply lack the capacity too understand those that have. Also, it simply doesn't fit with your confirmational biases.
listen stupid, it is this fucken simple, THERE IS NOTHING RATIONAL ABOUT BELIEVING THAT NOTHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE.
GEEZ YOUR REBUTTAL WAS SO FUCKEN STUPID BECAUSE I DID NOT MAKE AN ISSUE OF GOD, in fact my entire argument had nothing to do with God, it was that the origins of time have no rational explanation. that's it, you are arguing something different that nobody brought up here, imbecile.
-
if the universe is infinite, how can it be expanding
what is outside of the expanding borders which are actually not there because infinity?
tell me this, non believers
if you can't answer this you are a believer of "science" but not actually know much, just believe blindly
We don't know if the Universe is finite or infinite?
-
We don't know if the Universe is finite or infinite?
without knowing it is only believing
-
"God" ::)
Fuck every god created in the minds of imbecilic humans.
-
Yesterday at the gym this guy tells me his mother might have cancer, so he has to "really pray hard".
First, I feel sympathy for this fella having an ailing mom; second, as if praying is gonna make one bit of difference to the outcome.
What a joke concept.
-
listen stupid, it is this fucken simple, THERE IS NOTHING RATIONAL ABOUT BELIEVING THAT NOTHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE.
GEEZ YOUR REBUTTAL WAS SO FUCKEN STUPID BECAUSE I DID NOT MAKE AN ISSUE OF GOD, in fact my entire argument had nothing to do with God, it was that the origins of time have no rational explanation. that's it, you are arguing something different that nobody brought up here, imbecile.
Just because you believe THERE IS NOTHING RATIONAL ABOUT BELIEVING THAT NOTHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE, doesn't mean it isn't rational or true for that matter. Just because you don't understand the reasoning (rationality) behind it (scientific principles) doesn't invalidate it.
Besides, something needn't be rational to be true, the newest research on quantum physics is a testament to that. Evidence is all we need to validate something. And the reason I mention GOD, is because that is the only competing theory as to the origins of the Universe. SO if you don't believe the Universe spontaneously came into existence, what do you believe? I have shown you that someone has come up with a rational explanation to the origins of time. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
If someone is trying to teach you say basic addition, and they explain that if you have one apple and I give you another apple and that you now have two apples and this translates to the mathematical equation 1+1=2. Even if you still fail to understand this concept, it doesn't make mathematics invalid or irrational. What you are saying is like saying no-one has ever given a rational explanation of why 1+1=2 because you never understood the reasoning or logic behind it. Someone has given a rational explanation of the origins of time, and other scientists understand it and find it very compelling. Your inability to understand it, doesn't make it irrational anymore than someones inability to understand basic addition doesn't make mathematics irrational.
I hope this helps, you seem slightly retarded or autistic (no offense, just how your posts come across), I tried to explain it as simply as possible. ;D
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
God stands outside of the concept of time as he is infinite and uncaused. Time is only relevant to that which is created....that which is finite...that which began to exist. If God has a beginning then he has a cause greater than himself and that point of origin then must have a cause and that point of origin must have a cause....an infinite regression that is essentially illogical.
I know atheists detest the KCA and repeatedly cling to "it's been long since dedunked....it's been debunked!!" because they demand that all things fit inside their finite box. Unfortunately the created can't box up the creator on their terms. Well, they can if they alter who God is, but anything can fit a mold if it's force fit.
I'm sorry, but I can't fully explain the infinite qualities of God because I don't fully understand them. I trust in God because of how he's demonstrated who he is in my life, how that demonstration has been repeated in the lives of others and how he's validated what is written in scripture.
On a sidenote, "God botherers" is a term that more aptly applies to aths and ags......folks that have no belief in God but still bother with him almost on a daily basis. I always chuckle a bit when aths and ags ask me questions about my faith and then exhaustedly conclude "discussions" with, "is religion all you talk about?" Who bothered to open "discussions" about God in the first place? In fact I only discuss religion in PMs initiated by others and within threads "calling out" theists....not all of them, but some. I only begin discussions on the religion board, but yet I'm the one "bothering about God" LOL.
-
without knowing it is only believing
Not knowing is the absence of belief. It means you don't believe in either principle. Not knowing leaves one open to either possibility. Evidence eliminates not knowing. If someone claims to know something without evidence, it is simply an opinion.
-
God stands outside of the concept of time as he is infinite and uncaused. Time is only relevant to that which is created....that which is finite...that which began to exist. If God has a beginning then he has a cause greater than himself and that point of origin then must have a cause and that point of origin must have a cause....an infinite regression that is essentially illogical.
I know atheists detest the KCA and repeatedly cling to "it's been long since dedunked....it's been debunked!!" because they demand that all things fit inside their finite box. Unfortunately the created can't box up the creator on their terms. Well, they can if they alter who God is, but anything can fit a mold if it's force fit.
I'm sorry, but I can't fully explain the infinite qualities of God because I don't fully understand them. I trust in God because of how he's demonstrated who he is in my life, how that demonstration has been repeated in the lives of others and how he's validated what is written in scripture.
On a sidenote, "God botherers" is a term that more aptly applies to aths and ags......folks that have no belief in God but still bother with him almost on a daily basis. I always chuckle a bit when aths and ags ask me questions about my faith and then exhaustedly conclude "discussions" with, "is religion all you talk about?" Who bothered to open "discussions" about God in the first place? In fact I only discuss religion in PMs initiated by others and within threads "calling out" theists....not all of them, but some. I only begin discussions on the religion board, but yet I'm the one "bothering about God" LOL.
I always used the term God Botherer to refer to those who believe in prayer and this being some type of communion with the big man. If god actually did exist, I imagine he would be pissed of at hlw often his minions bothered him with stupid requests.
As for atheists or agnostics being god bothers, it makes no sense. You cannot bother something that you believe doesn't exist. Your comparison is akin to calling those who denounce ghosts and respond to those that do with ridicule and derision as ghost botherers. I believe the reason Agnostics and atheists speak out is because they believe religion to be toxic to civilized society. For them it is no different than speaking out against any other ideology that is destructive to the planet or the human race. At the very least, if a large group of people are going to make claims based on zero evidence and use this to create unhealthy societies, at the very least they need to be held accountable.
-
I knew exactly what you said, and my rebuttal was entirely appropriate. Stephen Hawkings has clearly stated the origin of time coincided with the origin of the Universe. The origin of the Universe (time) was the result of the fixed laws of nature. Hawking's has given countless evidence of this based on nothing but rationality (scientific principles). Sounds more than a rational explanation to me, but then again I am not bogged down with delusions and confusing and irrational belief systems.
You just like to believe that no rational explanation as to the origins of time have been put forward, either because you have never investigated the issue, or you simply lack the capacity too understand those that have. Also, it simply doesn't fit with your confirmational biases.
Hawking has abandoned his position that time began with the Big Bang, I believe.
It makes no sense, anyway. The Big Bang happened. According to current theory, anyway. It was an event. That means there was a time before it happened.
-
Hawking has abandoned his position that time began with the Big Bang, I believe.
It makes no sense, anyway. The Big Bang happened. According to current theory, anyway. It was an event. That means there was a time before it happened.
No he hasn't, which simply invalidates your next statement. It doesn't matter that something doesn't make sense to somebody, if there is evidence validating the theory, that is all that is needed. If I say that I can't make sense of why 2+2=4, doesn't make the equation and it's answer invalid. All it means is that I can't make sense of it.
The Beginning of Time - This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html)
-
why let so many children get raped, murdered, killed, etc? what god allows that?
-
why let so many children get raped, murdered, killed, etc? what god allows that?
because God can do whatever the fuck he wants
-
why let so many children get raped, murdered, killed, etc? what god allows that?
God botherers suggest that's where the Devil comes in, which raises quite a few more questions. Like where did the devil come from? (god botherers suggest a fallen angel ::)), and if God is all powerful, why does he allow the devil to exist?
The nature of Evil has always presented an explanatory problem to the God Botherers.
-
the real question is not why do ppl die but why do all you ppl live?
sinners all of you
-
I always used the term God Botherer to refer to those who believe in prayer and this being some type of communion with the big man. If god actually did exist, I imagine he would be pissed of at hlw often his minions bothered him with stupid requests.
As for atheists or agnostics being god bothers, it makes no sense. You cannot bother something that you believe doesn't exist. Your comparison is akin to calling those who denounce ghosts and respond to those that do with ridicule and derision as ghost botherers. I believe the reason Agnostics and atheists speak out is because they believe religion to be toxic to civilized society. For them it is no different than speaking out against any other ideology that is destructive to the planet or the human race. At the very least, if a large group of people are going to make claims based on zero evidence and use this to create unhealthy societies, at the very least they need to be held accountable.
both·er (br)
v. both·ered, both·er·ing, both·ers
v.tr.
1. To disturb or anger, especially by minor irritations; annoy. See Synonyms at annoy.
2.
a. To make agitated or nervous; fluster.
b. To make confused or perplexed; puzzle.
3. To intrude on without invitation or warrant; disturb.
4. To give trouble to: a back condition that bothers her constantly.
v.intr.
1. To take the trouble; concern oneself.
2. To cause trouble.
n.
A cause or state of disturbance.
interj.
Used to express annoyance or mild irritation.
As a believer, I'm sorry, but this is not what I do when I discuss my faith. In fact, given the definition of the word "bother" it is diametrically opposed to how I present my faith and choose to represent Christ.
-
both·er (br)
v. both·ered, both·er·ing, both·ers
v.tr.
1. To disturb or anger, especially by minor irritations; annoy. See Synonyms at annoy.
2.
a. To make agitated or nervous; fluster.
b. To make confused or perplexed; puzzle.
3. To intrude on without invitation or warrant; disturb.
4. To give trouble to: a back condition that bothers her constantly.
v.intr.
1. To take the trouble; concern oneself.
2. To cause trouble.
n.
A cause or state of disturbance.
interj.
Used to express annoyance or mild irritation.
As a believer, I'm sorry, but this is not what I do when I discuss my faith. In fact, given the definition of the word "bother" it is diametrically opposed to how I present my faith and choose to represent Christ.
God Botherer meaning someone who bothers God, usually via prayer. If you pray to God, you are a god botherer. Leave the deity alone already, don't you think he already has enough on his plate. ;D
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
Your questions are based on the assumption that God is a man. He is unlike you and me.
Why would he have to be created or have an origin? If He did, he would be just like any other human.
He is GOD. The Great I AM. Too powerful and too mysterious for our inferior human minds to comprehend while we are in this carnal body.
-
Its 2013 i cant believe people still believe in this God, religion,heaven mumbo jumbo and whats worse its not just a few nuts, its billions!! Prove it to me! Go on prove it!! you fucking cant!!! Its all brainwashing shit that you fell for!
The fact that someone like you has survived this long is a miracle. Therefore, God must exist since he has shown you mercy.
-
God Botherer meaning someone who bothers God, usually via prayer. If you pray to God, you are a god botherer. Leave the deity alone already, don't you think he already has enough on his plate. ;D
LOL, ok, I'll give you that one!
-
No he hasn't, which simply invalidates your next statement. It doesn't matter that something doesn't make sense to somebody, if there is evidence validating the theory, that is all that is needed. If I say that I can't make sense of why 2+2=4, doesn't make the equation and it's answer invalid. All it means is that I can't make sense of it.
The Beginning of Time - This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html)
You are wrong. Did you even read it?
Here is the relevant part:
"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."
From an operational point of view, he now says "events before the Big Bang are simply not defined because there's no way one could measure what happened at them." That's very different than saying that time actually began at the Big Bang, which was his position twenty years ago.
As to your second point, of course it's true that it is scientific evidence that counts. As Hawking says in the very lecture you cite, there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang. There is no evidence in this case.
-
Your questions are based on the assumption that God is a man. He is unlike you and me.
Why would he have to be created or have an origin? If He did, he would be just like any other human.
He is GOD. The Great I AM. Too powerful and too mysterious for our inferior human minds to comprehend while we are in this carnal body.
His assumption is based on the scientific principle of cause and effect. Meaning something cannot come into existence without a cause. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators (prior causes), and we would never be able to find the first uncaused cause, since by definition (the question says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause.
This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered, since its weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin?
That's what his assumption was based on.
-
His assumption is based on the scientific principle of cause and effect. Meaning something cannot come into existence without a cause. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators (prior causes), and we would never be able to find the first uncaused cause, since by definition (the question says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause.
This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered, since its weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin?
That's what his assumption was based on.
Are you for real? That whole absurd infinite regress argument has been around for over a thousand years. You actually think you are breaking new ground? There are many arguments and counter arguments that you are apparently unaware of. Why don't you educate yourself before opening your pie hole? You might come off less like a fool.
Just a suggestion.
-
You are wrong. Did you even read it?
Here is the relevant part:
"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."
From an operational point of view, he now says "events before the Big Bang are simply not defined because there's no way one could measure what happened at them." That's very different than saying that time actually began at the Big Bank, which was his position twenty years ago.
As to your second point, of course it's true that it is scientific evidence that counts. As Hawking says in the very lecture you cite, there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang. There is no evidence in this case.
Hawkins conclusion from that lecture : "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago"
Other quotes from Hawkins
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
And this one from his documentary last year called "Grand Design: Did God create the Universe “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”
-
Hawkins conclusion from that lecture : "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago"
Other quotes from Hawkins
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
And this one from his documentary last year called "Grand Design: Did God create the Universe “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”
What's your problem? Hawking defines what he means by saying time began at the Big Bang: If we can't get any information about it, we can make no statements about it, and hence we ignore it. That is his current position on time before the Big Bang. He used to think it did not exist; he now, defining knowability in terms of what science can establish through observation, he defines "existence" as knowabilty.
That is not an unexpected position from a scientist. However, is it really true that the limits of human knowledge coincide with reality and it makes no sense to talk about the universe beyond what we can observe and detect? This position is called "Scientism", and it is by no means universal among scientists.
Many physicists - Alan Guth among them - are much less certain that the universe started with the Big Bang, and now talk openly about events before it happened.
-
Are you for real? That whole absurd infinite regress argument has been around for over a thousand years. You actually think you are breaking new ground? There are many arguments and counter arguments that you are apparently unaware of. Why don't you educate yourself before opening your pie hole? You might come off less like a fool.
Just a suggestion.
Obviously touched a nerve when I pointed out your blatant lie that was supporting your nonsense theory that time existed before the big bang. My response regarding infinite regress as to the question as to who created god was a simply a response to another poster suggesting the question was based on the assumption that god was a man. How someone could come to that conclusion is beyond me. I was simply pointing out what the question was based on. I am certainly not claiming to be breaking new ground. And as for your comment that Hawkins said "there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.' you obviously misunderstood the lecture, he in no way implied such a thing.
The reason he says that "there's no way one could measure events before the Big Bang" because 'before' the big bang implies their was TIME before the big bang and he undeniably acknowledges there was no time before the big bang. So if there is no time, their is no before! Time started at the big bang, most cosmologists accept this.
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
God is the empty set that contains all empty sets
-
Obviously touched a nerve when I pointed out your blatant lie that was supporting your nonsense theory that time existed before the big bang. My response regarding infinite regress as to the question as to who created god was a simply a response to another poster suggesting the question was based on the assumption that god was a man. How someone could come to that conclusion is beyond me. I was simply pointing out what the question was based on. I am certainly not claiming to be breaking new ground. And as for your comment that Hawkins said "there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.' you obviously misunderstood the lecture, he in no way implied such a thing.
The reason he says that "there's no way one could measure events before the Big Bang" because 'before' the big bang implies their was TIME before the big bang and he undeniably acknowledges there was no time before the big bang. So if there is no time, their is no before! Time started at the big bang, most cosmologists accept this.
No, you, didn't touch a nerve, imbecile. Hawking's position is that talking about time before the Big Bang makes no sense because we cannot observe anything before it.
He used to say that there was nothing before it. You are confusing the two positions. What a chump.
But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know.
-
What's your problem? Hawking defines what he means by saying time began at the Big Bang: If we can't get any information about it, we can make no statements about it, and hence we ignore it. That is his current position on time before the Big Bang. He used to think it did not exist; he now, defining knowability in terms of what science can establish through observation, he defines "existence" as knowabilty.
That is not an unexpected position from a scientist. However, is it really true that the limits of human knowledge coincide with reality and it makes no sense to talk about the universe beyond what we can observe and detect? This position is called "Scientism", and it is by no means universal among scientists.
Many physicists - Alan Guth among them - are much less certain that the universe started with the Big Bang, and now talk openly about events before it happened.
If you are going to make claims such as Stephen Hawkins changed his position on a key component to his theories, you probably need to provide evidence to be taken seriously. Show me the evidence that Hawking denies his theory that time didn't exist before the big bang. Your claim of suggesting that Hawkins defines existence as knowability sounds like semantic bullshit. And how can many physicists not believe in the big bang or question it and then talk about events before something they are uncertain happened. That's like me saying I don't believe in ghosts, but these are they types of sounds they make when haunting a place.. WWWHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO !
-
If you are going to make claims such as Stephen Hawkins changed his position on a key component to his theories, you probably need to provide evidence to be taken seriously. Show me the evidence that Hawking denies his theory that time didn't exist before the big bang. Your claim of suggesting that Hawkins defines existence as knowability sounds like semantic bullshit. And how can many physicists not believe in the big bang or question it and then talk about events before something they are uncertain happened. That's like me saying I don't believe in ghosts, but these are they types of sounds they make when haunting a place.. WWWHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO !
Why don't you go Googling and come back when you know something, Chump?
Shaddup until then. ;)
-
why let so many children get raped, murdered, killed, etc? what god allows that?
You assume a higher power/God is good.
Just because something is more powerful does NOT mean it is good or does good things.
Look at the highest political powers in the world.
-
No, you, didn't touch a nerve, imbecile. Hawking's position is that talking about time before the Big Bang makes no sense because we cannot observe anything before it.
He used to say that there was nothing before it. You are confusing the two positions. What a chump.
But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know.
Hawkins never said there was nothing before the big bang, he said there was no time before the big bang. You are confusing the two positions. What a chump.
But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know.
(Once again, provide a quotation or some evidence to back up your claims, you have obviously pushed Hawkins words through some type of distorted filter to conform to some bias you have). Rather than make a claim, just provide a quotation of what Hawkins said, rather than putting words in the mans mouth"
-
Hawkins never said there was nothing before the big bang, he said there was no time before the big bang. You are confusing the two positions. What a chump.
But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know.
(Once again, provide a quotation or some evidence to back up your claims, you have obviously pushed Hawkins words through some type of distorted filter to conform to some bias you have). Rather than make a claim, just provide a quotation of what Hawkins said, rather than putting words in the mans mouth"
You posted a link to the relevant quotation yourself, numbskull.
-
You posted a link to the relevant quotation yourself, numbskull.
Then why don't you just post the quote, because I never posted any quote that Hawkins stated that there was nothing before the big bang. You seem to take pretty concise and precise statements and run them through a filter that comes up with rather inaccurate interpretations. For example, you have taken the concept of "NO TIME" to mean 'NOTHING"
-
Then why don't you just post the quote, because I never posted any quote that Hawkins stated that there was nothing before the big bang. You seem to take pretty concise and precise statements and run them through a filter that comes up with rather inaccurate interpretations. For example, you have taken the concept of "NO TIME" to mean 'NOTHING"
What an idiot.
-
What does God put up on upright rows?
-
What an idiot.
You went from trying to present an articulate argument, to trying to offer an articulate argument interspersed with ad hominem attacks, to just simply resorting to ad hominem attacks. I guess that ends the debate then.
-
You assume a higher power/God is good.
Just because something is more powerful does NOT mean it is good or does good things.
Look at the highest political powers in the world.
It isn't an assumption, the bible tells us so.
Psalms 145:9 The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.
Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
1 Timothy 4:4For everything created by God is good
1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; For His lovingkindness is everlasting.
These are just a few examples, the bible is full of praise of God's goodness.
-
I don't even know why all the god botherers get upset at Hawkins theories, he hasn't absolutely discounted the possibility of God. Hawkins simply believes the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but he believes God does not intervene to break the laws. Essentially, if their is a God/Creator it is highly unlikely it is the God of the bible or any other religion for that matter. Hawking himself doesn't believe that their is a God and regarded the concept of Heaven as a myth, believing that there is "no heaven or afterlife" and that such a notion was a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
The beautiful thing about there being no God, as Hawkins pointed out, is that we are each free to believe what we want and no one directs our fate. A concept far more liberating than the prison of religion with it's indoctrination and condemnation of free thinking coupled with forced subservience to a wrathful deity.
-
So god is NOT good? Then WHY pray to him? IF he is evil, I want NO part of him.
-
getbigs intelectual council about to disclose everything about the bigbang.
-
So god is NOT good? Then WHY pray to him? IF he is evil, I want NO part of him.
It's possible GOD could be both good and evil, which would explain the belief humans are created in his image. The bible says God is good, but he commits acts that are pretty hard to interpret any other way than being pretty fucking evil.(especially the first testament)
-
thanks ekul
I was thinking the same thing
if we are made in his image, and we are fucking evil beyond belief... then he must be the most evil thing in history
-
getbigs intelectual council about to disclose everything about the bigbang.
if the big bang was an explosion of a point of ultimate mass
what was that point of mass floating in? in nothingness?
-
Slowly allowing the concept of a god to diminish in your mind is like being deprogrammed from the brainwashing indoctrination that occurs when one falls prey to any cult. Over time, the idiocy and foolishness becomes just that much more apparent.
Make no mistake. If you're a follower of any of the religions, you have been brainwashed. Either this or you're without a great deal of natural intelligence. Actually, if you fall into the latter category, you will be at a greater risk of fully becoming victim to that brainwashing.
Over a dozen years removed from my Roman Catholic upbringing and brainwashing, the very thought of modern man believing such unparalleled nonsense has me utterly depressed.
-
if the big bang was an explosion of a point of ultimate mass
what was that point of mass floating in? in nothingness?
yah and into what is the universe expanding?nothingness?
they cant even yet see whats at the end of the expanding universe but they run their mouths,the scientist.
yah i know the balloon theory is used, saying there no centre, its all equaly blowing up into all spheres-directions.
how the fuck do they know this,when they cant see the "horizon"?
its just a bs claim, i can claim the universe is a cube on the outside and thats not less credible.
and how did the first mass comeinto being, yah i read it all, but non reprodcucable, therefore, hearsay,,making stuff up.
a soup of photons.yeah sure.
-
yah and into what is the universe expanding?nothingness?
they cant even yet see whats at the end of the expanding universe but they run their mouths,the scientist.
yah i know the balloon theory is used, saying there no centre, its all equaly blowing up into all spheres-directions.
how the fuck do they know this,when they cant see the "horizon"?
its just a bs claim, i can claim the universe is a cube on the outside and thats not less credible.
and how did the first mass comeinto being, yah i read it all, but non reprodcucable, therefore, hearsay,,making stuff up.
a soup of photons.yeah sure.
when you ask these questions they roll their eyes and say distance and time concepts we have dont apply to that scale
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
he is eternal, has no begining and no end. He is the last of us, and he is the one who will create life somehwere else, and so on over and over again indefinitely in the universe. We are finite, he isnt. Also he doesnt care about death, as he is immortal. He masters space and time. He is everything, he is life itself.
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
Us being humans cannot understand what it is to be outside of the time space continuum. This is why it's difficult to fathom a being that is timeless, spaceless, and all powerful. But that's what the situation is. He's the creator of all things. He is He has that has no beginning or end. He says "I am that I am". he is The most high.
-
he is eternal, has no begining and no end. He is the last of us, and he is the one who will create life somehwere else, and so on over and over again indefinitely in the universe. We are finite, he isnt. Also he doesnt care about death, as he is immortal. He masters space and time. He is everything, he is life itself.
Evidence please ! I could say the same thing about the flying spaghetti monster in the sky, who is watching you by the way. Based on your logic and faith based conclusions, the existence of a flying spaghetti monster is an equally valid proposition as the existence of God.
(http://www.awesomeoff.com/images/entries/mainview/fsm_sky.jpg)
The burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.
-
He's the creator of all things. He is He has that has no beginning or end. He says "I am that I am". he is The most high.
How do you know all this stuff?
-
when you ask these questions they roll their eyes and say distance and time concepts we have dont apply to that scale
yeah like , "its very hard to understand balbla".
well, then explain in layman terms.
its only a matter of having a strong enough telescope to see the horizon, but the longer it takes, the further out the universe spreads and chances to ever see beyond get smaller every day.
they really use some cocky excuses and wordings to describe how they know basicaly fuck all.
i dont see why religion would be any more ridiculous than what science so far got.
and how they say the big bang theory is accepted, duuh, no shit,is it.
they miscalculated the weight of the milky way by some 1million factor, thats the newest estimate now, they only been 1 million or so times off.
and the black hole which allegedly sucks anything into it and nothing can escape from it, well, not even that was true.
-
A bunch of assumptions without evidence. Yes, God has always been here right. Yes, God does not need a begininning. Blah, blah, blah.
-
yeah like , "its very hard to understand balbla".
well, then explain in layman terms.
its only a matter of having a strong enough telescope to see the horizon, but the longer it takes, the further out the universe spreads and chances to ever see beyond get smaller every day.
they really use some cocky excuses and wordings to describe how they know basicaly fuck all.
i dont see why religion would be any more ridiculous than what science so far got.
and how they say the big bang theory is accepted, duuh, no shit,is it.
they miscalculated the weight of the milky way by some 1million factor, thats the newest estimate now, they only been 1 million or so times off.
and the black hole which allegedly sucks anything into it and nothing can escape from it, well, not even that was true.
Not everything can be explained in laymans terms. Not everything is as simple as lifting a weight up and down. If a complex subject matter could be easily explained to an imbecile it wouldn't be that complex. When they say the big bang theory is accepted,the mean amongst those that matter in the scientific profession, not the moronic masses. Those in the scientific community knew long before the mainstream accepted the notion that the world was indeed round.
As for black holes, it is still accepted that the gravitation is so powerful that nothing, not even electromagnetic radiation (including light), can escape from a black hole, this is still accepted to be true. The theory you are talking about is "Hawking radiation" which suggest that "virtual pairs" of particles sometimes wink into existence from the fabric of space itself. These particles quickly cancel each other out and vanish. But if a pair of particles appear just outside a black hole's horizon, one may fall inside, never to make it outside again. If the one on the outside doesn't fall through the horizon, then the particles can't cancel each other out. In essence, that "steals" a little bit of mass from a black hole. Over countless billions of billions of billions of years, the mass loss could become substantial enough to cause the black hole to vaporize. Material would come out, but not in its original form -- only as energy and subatomic particles.
Just because a theory gets modified, doesn't invalidate science. Science is still unsure of exactly how gravity works, yet we know that it does, and it's a fixed law with repetitively verifiable results. Same with flight theory, they recently modified that. All along it turns out they were wrong when explaining how a plane flew. But the science was sound enough to create reliable aircraft, you don't always have to know why something works, just that it does work. and that it works in a way that can be reproduced consistently.
-
How do you know all this stuff?
Because I'm a Hebrew and this is what we do. Our ancestors wrote the Bible and was spoken to through from the most high the creator of all things. He chose a race of people and made a covenant. We were suppose to go out to the world and be an example by following the laws and spreading the gospel. He warned that if we didn't keep our part of the covenant, we'd be cursed by going into slavery and be fucked with wherever we go, among other curses. Read the the curses of Deuteronomy 28. It has Negro written all over it. from how we got here to why we're always so fucked up. To why the world has forgotten we are the real Hebrews, To what will happen the rest of our journey. We are black but we are distinctly different from Africans. We don't come from the African bloodline They are the seed of Ham, we of Shem. Meaning semitic. The so called Negro is a semitic race. We can trace our journey in history from Israel to the west coast of Africa. There are history books on that in addition to the Bible.
-
Because I'm a Hebrew and this is what we do. Our ancestors wrote the Bible and was spoken to though of a monotheistic the most high the creator of all things. He chose a race of people and made a covenant. We were suppose to go out to the world and be an example by following the laws and spreading the gospel. He warned that if we didn't keeour part of the coveanant, we'd be cursed by going into slavery and be fucked with whereever we go, among other curses. Read the the curses of Deutoronomy 28. It has Negro wirtten all over it. from how we got here to why we're always so fucked up. To why the world has forgotten we are the real Hebrews, To what will happen the rest of our journey. We are black but we are desitinctly different from Africans. We do come from the African bloodline They are the seed of Ham, we of Shem. Meanin semitic. The so called Negro is a semitic race. We can trace our journey in history from Israel to the west coast of Africa. There are history books on that in addiional to the Bible.
Translation: I have been indoctrinated to the point of having my critical thinking faculties shut down. This process eroded any ability I might have had to think for myself and recognise the ridiculousness of my beliefs. I reject all other religions and gods as false and acknowledge my faith as the one true faith.
-
Translation: I have been indoctrinated to the point of having my critical thinking faculties shut down. This process eroded any ability I might have had to think for myself and recognise the ridiculousness of my beliefs. I reject all other religions and gods as false and acknowledge my faith as the one true faith.
If you knew the bible you wouldn't be saying the dumb things you do. It's your soul at stake and it's your sould that will be burning eternally. Scoffer.
-
There are too many "one track minds" in this thread.
I think Darren Avey knew this thread would attract E-Kul and wanted to witness the ensuing meltdowns E-Kul was sure to have.
-
This is why people have always had a problem with us. Because our book got so popular, (because it's true :-* ) It was changing the way people lived their lives and changing cultures. Well people have a problem with that like this meathead. Well I have a job to do. Spread the word of The Most High.
-
If you knew the bible you wouldn't be saying the dumb things you do. It's your soul at stake and it's your sould that will be burning eternally. Scoffer.
The man has a point.
-
This is why people have always had a problem with us. Because our book got so popular, (because it's true :-* ) It was changing the way people lived their lives and changing cultures. Well people have a problem with that like this meathead. Well I have a job to do. Spread the word of the most high.
What about the pastafarians, are you saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real.
-
What about the pastafarians, are you saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real.
internet atheists always sound like dicks speaking of these spaghetti monster. bunch of wankers lol
and I'm not a believer.
-
internet atheists always sound like dicks speaking of these spaghetti monster. bunch of wankers lol
and I'm not a believer.
Getbig has helped me develop quite a thick skin and I'm now rather immune to the comments such as "blah, blah, blah", "flying spaghetti monster", "god botherer", "book of fairytales", etc.....and these are the nicer comments. I've had folks on here tell me they're gonna rape my wife or rape my daughter because of my faith....terrible stuff. I rarely give more than a slight chuckle now to any negativity.
What I constantly remember is to be a representative for Christ and continue to be the salt and light as we're called to be.
Plus I know if I was face to face with the same folks making these comments anonymously online that they wouldn't do the same in person. Of course they say, "I wouldn't be any different to you." Every single one would be night and day different and probably quite muted. This isn't some tough guy thing I'm saying either....it's just the truth. Me, I don't talk down to folks or insult them so I have nothing to fear by my online actions....I would be exactly the same in person as I am online. I would share my faith in person just as I do on these boards. I would expect others would disagree in person, but it would be passive and more of a casual "let's just agree to disagree". All the peppering of insults, memes, filth and vitriol to my face.....LOL, not in a million years. :)
-
Plus I know if I was face to face with the same folks making these comments anonymously online that they wouldn't do the same in person. Of course they say, "I wouldn't be any different to you." Every single one would be night and day different and probably quite muted. This isn't some tough guy thing I'm saying either....it's just the truth. Me, I don't talk down to folks or insult them so I have nothing to fear by my online actions....I would be exactly the same in person as I am online.
I agree
I have to admit ,I'm pretty bad ass online and a huge pussy IRL .
-
Getbig has helped me develop quite a thick skin and I'm now rather immune to the comments such as "blah, blah, blah", "flying spaghetti monster", "god botherer", "book of fairytales", etc.....and these are the nicer comments. I've had folks on here tell me they're gonna rape my wife or rape my daughter because of my faith....terrible stuff. I rarely give more than a slight chuckle now to any negativity.
What I constantly remember is to be a representative for Christ and continue to be the salt and light as we're called to be.
Plus I know if I was face to face with the same folks making these comments anonymously online that they wouldn't do the same in person. Of course they say, "I wouldn't be any different to you." Every single one would be night and day different and probably quite muted. This isn't some tough guy thing I'm saying either....it's just the truth. Me, I don't talk down to folks or insult them so I have nothing to fear by my online actions....I would be exactly the same in person as I am online. I would share my faith in person just as I do on these boards. I would expect others would disagree in person, but it would be passive and more of a casual "let's just agree to disagree". All the peppering of insults, filth and vitriol to my face.....LOL, not in a million years. :)
Keep telling yourself that. I would challenge your beliefs in person as I do on here. Granted, I am not an asshole as much as I used to be about it, and that applies to any religious person. But what makes you think I wouldnt question you as I question you on here? I have never said anything crass, except questioning your faith. I have never insulted you. So stop playing the bleeding christian. If you consider it insulting when someone questions your beliefs, then you do not have a thick skin. Its funny how sensitive religious people are lol. We questions their faith = insulting them. Gimme a break. Grow up. People have every right to question religion.
-
Religion will get you to look inwards, at your flaws and how you don't measure up. Religion wants to conform, control, restrict and punish you. Jesus isn't religion, he came to give life and give it to the fullest. My 2 cents.
-
Keep telling yourself that. I would challenge your beliefs in person as I do on here. Granted, I am not an asshole as much as I used to be about it, and that applies to any religious person. But what makes you think I wouldnt question you as I question you on here? I have never said anything crass, except questioning your faith. I have never insulted you. So stop playing the bleeding christian. If you consider it insulting when someone questions your beliefs, then you do not have a thick skin. Its funny how sensitive religious people are lol. We questions their faith = insulting them. Gimme a break.
I dont believe in religious shit.
-
Religion exists because unfortunately some people need a reason to behave morally.
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
man you are trying to apply our life's rules on God who created us?!.. instead of thinking this way,.. it's better to think how come this balanced very well organized world has been created by itself due to some biological evolution!!..
-
man you are trying to apply our life's rules on God who created us?!.. instead of thinking this way,.. it's better to think how come this balanced very well organized world has been created by itself due to some biological evolution!!..
Sherief looks bigger lately with reduced bodyfat.
-
Keep telling yourself that. I would challenge your beliefs in person as I do on here. Granted, I am not an asshole as much as I used to be about it, and that applies to any religious person. But what makes you think I wouldnt question you as I question you on here? I have never said anything crass, except questioning your faith. I have never insulted you. So stop playing the bleeding christian. If you consider it insulting when someone questions your beliefs, then you do not have a thick skin. Its funny how sensitive religious people are lol. We questions their faith = insulting them. Gimme a break. Grow up. People have every right to question religion.
I would expect others would disagree in person, but it would be passive and more of a casual "let's just agree to disagree". All the peppering of insults, memes, filth and vitriol to my face.....LOL, not in a million years. :)
:)
-
Sherief looks bigger lately with reduced bodyfat.
8)
-
Evidence please ! I could say the same thing about the flying spaghetti monster in the sky, who is watching you by the way. Based on your logic and faith based conclusions, the existence of a flying spaghetti monster is an equally valid proposition as the existence of God.
(http://www.awesomeoff.com/images/entries/mainview/fsm_sky.jpg)
The burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.
There is no evidence that will satisfy you. For many, the existence of the universe is sufficient proof for the existence of G-d. But you don't agree with that. It is really a way of looking at reality. Did everything, including humanity, get generated out of blind, unthinking natural processes? Or is the universe and humanity all the fulfillment of intention and will, the intention and will of G-d?
Moreover, who says that reality is that which can be described only by falsifiable claims? That seems to stretch Karl Popper's original notion that scientific theories be falsifiable (ie, testable) to absurdity. For example, is it falsifiable that saving someone's life is good? How can I prove to you that such an act is good and to be admired? There is something more fundamental and basic about the good of saving someone's life than the doctrine of falsifiability.
Belief in G-d is like that.
-
:)
But thats the thing, I never insulted you. I asked you honest questions and you assume that is insulting you because you do not have a thick skin.
-
Looking great Sherief
-
hes present everywhere.
22 sightings:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/people-who-found-jesus-in-their-food
-
hes present everywhere.
22 sightings:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/people-who-found-jesus-in-their-food
This just proves how crazy religious people are. Jesus in a potato chip, in a cheeto, in a pancake. People can't be that stupid. Then again, yes they can be.
-
But thats the thing, I never insulted you. I asked you honest questions and you assume that is insulting you because you do not have a thick skin.
I never said I was referring only to you....I didn't call out anyone specifically.
For the last 3 years I've received a bunch of random hate....too much to even catalog. A few years ago I probably could call out a few folks, but today it's all just a blur of hate.
-
This just proves how crazy religious people are. Jesus in a potato chip, in a cheeto, in a pancake. People can't be that stupid. Then again, yes they can be.
I have never believed in him.
-
I never said I was referring only to you....I didn't call out anyone specifically.
For the last 3 years I've received a bunch of random hate....too much to even catalog. A few years ago I probably could call out a few folks, but today it's all just a blur of hate.
You didnt call out anyone specifically, huh? You wrote:
Getbig has helped me develop quite a thick skin and I'm now rather immune to the comments such as "blah, blah, blah", "flying spaghetti monster", "god botherer", "book of fairytales", etc.....and these are the nicer comments.
And I said, "Blah, blah, blah" in a few posts up. So, yes, indirectly you did call me out, even if not specifically.
And yes, everything I have said to you on here, I would say to you in person (even the blah, blah, blah). Because lets be honest, if that offends you, then you have no backbone. :-\ :-\
-
I have never believed in him.
Do you believe in Johnny Falcon?
-
:D
(http://joshuakeith.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/anti-atheism-big-bang.jpg)
-
Religion is basically the same as sports. Everyone has their favourite team, and they believe that their team is the best one. Each team has a bunch of fans who are loud and angry and are not good people. Similarly, every team has good, honest people, who want to enjoy the game and get along with the other fans.
At the end of the day, as long as you enjoy going to the game, and it makes you a happy person who enjoys their life, then it doesn't really matter what others think. Some people need to support their team, or have other fans around them, to make them feel more secure in life. Others need the teams idealogy to follow, to keep them on the right path. It's all the same.
The hard part comes when you die, and you realise that it wasn't real. But by then you're dead, so it's doesn't make one bit of difference to you, because believing throughout your whole life has brought you happiness or peace. And the people who didn't believe won't know either, not until they're also dead. And everyone can continue arguing in the big black void of nothingness.
And that's that.
-
The hard part comes when you die, and you realise that it wasn't real. But by then you're dead, so it's doesn't make one bit of difference to you, because believing throughout your whole life has brought you happiness or peace. And the people who didn't believe won't know either, not until they're also dead. And everyone can continue arguing in the big black void of nothingness.
And that's that.
^
-
‘Live a good life. If there are gods, and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.’
-
Do you believe in Johnny Falcon?
I have met Johnny he used to have a great physique and is getting back in shape.
-
:D
(http://joshuakeith.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/anti-atheism-big-bang.jpg)
(http://www.religifake.com/image/religion/small/1206/makes-perfect-sense-makes-perfect-sense-religion-1338588910.jpg)
This ones even better :D :D
(http://www.00lol.com/i/christianity-makes-perfect-sense.jpg)
-
‘Live a good life. If there are gods, and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.’
Arce, would these just virtues include picking someone up at the airport? :D :D
-
:D ;D
-
Please go take some courses in theology. They go through what you want to understand, methodically and logically. I was agnostic in university and still am.....yet here I am understanding why there may be a higher power.
he's just mad that God "made" him 5'0...and he likes boxing
We short people often times get pissed that while normal people's arms are to short to box with God, our arms are even shorter...
So we take it out on God-believers.
-
There is no evidence that will satisfy you. For many, the existence of the universe is sufficient proof for the existence of G-d. But you don't agree with that. It is really a way of looking at reality. Did everything, including humanity, get generated out of blind, unthinking natural processes? Or is the universe and humanity all the fulfillment of intention and will, the intention and will of G-d?
Moreover, who says that reality is that which can be described only by falsifiable claims? That seems to stretch Karl Popper's original notion that scientific theories be falsifiable (ie, testable) to absurdity. For example, is it falsifiable that saving someone's life is good? How can I prove to you that such an act is good and to be admired? There is something more fundamental and basic about the good of saving someone's life than the doctrine of falsifiability.
Belief in G-d is like that.
If you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster then there is no evidence that will satisfy you. See how absurd that sounds when I replace god with the flying spaghetti monster. And the fact you think just because something exists that is tantamount to proof of anything shows how little you understand about the sciences and what is considered evidence. Once again, I could use your ridiculous logic and claim the existence of the universe is sufficient proof for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
I don't think I have ever heard a more absurd proposition:
a)The Universe exists B) This is proof god exists
it's absurd as suggesting the following
a) Chimneys exist B) This is proof Santa Claus exists
And you seem to have anthropomorphised God, given him human characteristics like intention, will and thought. Why does there have to be a will or intention behind creation?
Also, I hope you aren't suggesting saving someones life is always a good deed. And concepts like saving someones life are abstract constructs. You really need to re-articulate such a question to make sense. Do you mean preventing someone from potentially dying? Essentially saving someones life could mean having to take someone else's life? You are talking about ethical issues and not scientific ones. Saving someones life can be both good or bad depending on the context. For example: If you tried to kill my friend, and I killed you to prevent that, although I may perceive what I did as a good thing, as I saved my friends life, your family and friends will have a different take on the matter.
So you can't prove if saving someones life is good or bad as it is based on subjective values and not objective ones. Unlike the laws of nature which are fixed and not affected by subjectivity, gravity doesn't stop working because you think it an immoral act.
Your posts makes very little sense to me, especially your comparison that believing in God is like your belief that saving someones life is good. Are you saying belief in God is a lot like like holding an opinion?
-
(http://theimperfectdisciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/wrestling.jpg)
-
(http://theimperfectdisciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/wrestling.jpg)
When a Posedown gets physical?
-
How many times do you think Cain and Abel f*cked Eve? Adam was a cuckold?
-
:D
(http://joshuakeith.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/anti-atheism-big-bang.jpg)
The logic is based on a faulty premise to begin with so everything after that is also illogical. Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Atheists don't necessarily have an opinion on the big bang theory. And as for the suggestion that those who believe in the big bang believe that there was nothing is false. They posit a long time ago there was a singularity of infinite density and infinitesimal volume that because of the laws of nature expanded into everything we know as the Universe today. A singularity containing within it the entire matter of the universe can hardly be described as 'NOTHING'
-
How many times do you think Cain and Abel f*cked Eve? Adam was a cuckold?
Obviously Eve favored Abel enough to warrant Cain killing the guy? Is it possible the very first homicide was over some pussy?
-
"In the whole of human history, there was never been a single case when the supernatural explanation turned out to be the right one.
Betting on science,when it conflicts with religious belief,is a pretty sure bet."
-
:o
-
Religion is basically the same as sports. Everyone has their favourite team, and they believe that their team is the best one. Each team has a bunch of fans who are loud and angry and are not good people. Similarly, every team has good, honest people, who want to enjoy the game and get along with the other fans.
At the end of the day, as long as you enjoy going to the game, and it makes you a happy person who enjoys their life, then it doesn't really matter what others think. Some people need to support their team, or have other fans around them, to make them feel more secure in life. Others need the teams idealogy to follow, to keep them on the right path. It's all the same.
The hard part comes when you die, and you realise that it wasn't real. But by then you're dead, so it's doesn't make one bit of difference to you, because believing throughout your whole life has brought you happiness or peace. And the people who didn't believe won't know either, not until they're also dead. And everyone can continue arguing in the big black void of nothingness.
And that's that.
And that's that. Smug as a douchebag in a rug.
-
Darren, I'm online now waiting for your answer
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PY1ntwdqtcM/UnEvMLswTzI/AAAAAAAAClI/hO1jL_oO2pY/s1600/Doge.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/5stxHkf.gif)
-
lol where did the term "flying spaghetti monster" come from? That literally made me lol even though I dont get it
-
lol where did the term "flying spaghetti monster" come from? That literally made me lol even though I dont get it
Bobby Henderson in 2005
-
the real question is not why do ppl die but why do all you ppl live?
sinners all of you
steroid junkie like you "don't" sin ::)
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
Mount OLYMPUS :D
-
There is no evidence that will satisfy you.
That's the whole point, there is no evidence. You make it sound as if there is some. I would be happy with a tiny skerrick of evidence, an infinitesimally minute slither of evidence. Even a microscopic portion of evidence will do. But their is currently ZERO evidence for the existence of GOD?
-
lol where did the term "flying spaghetti monster" come from? That literally made me lol even though I dont get it
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism. I myself am a devout Pastafarianism and don't appreciate you mocking my GOD. >:(
-
That's the whole point, there is no evidence. You make it sound as if there is some. I would be happy with a tiny skerrick of evidence, an infinitesimally minute slither of evidence. Even a microscopic portion of evidence will do. But their is currently ZERO evidence for the existence of GOD?
I didn't say no evidence; I said no evidence that would satisfy you. And you just confirmed that I was right.
-
E-kul, not to be a dick, but it's Hawking, bro. Not Hawkins.
-
The ironic thing in this statement is that you are so willingly BLIND that you refuse to see what you are saying. I'll break it down for you:
Christian View: God has always existed
Atheist View: Universe has always existed
Both are religious. YET, you seem to claim that your view is science and the Christian view is religious. They are both religious. If you believe we all came from a big bang which came from nothing, there is not a single method to prove it. It's RELIGIOUS.
Another fallacy in your argument that you like to use is that "scientists say that"....as if all scientist are atheists. WRONG. Not only wrong, but what you are really trying to do is paint the picture that your theory is what all smart people believe and the Bible is what all ignorant people believe.
Looking at this universe and saying there is no Designer / Creator is like looking at a car and saying it just got here from a massive explosion that came from nothing. Very foolish.
WoW! This whole thread I have never said Atheists believe the Universe has always existed, I don't think I mentioned the atheists point of view on the origins of the Universe. Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Atheists don't necessarily have an opinion on the big bang theory.
I have put forward Stephen Hawkings view that God couldn't have been responsible for the Big Bang, as there was no time before the big bang for a GOD to have existed in. One is religious, the other absolutely not. Religion being The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Hawking's theories are 100% based on science and have nothing to do with religion (how you came to that conclusion is staggering); Hawkins origin of the universe theory is based on sound scientific principles (unlike yours). His theory stems from his research on black holes, and how they affect time. The closer one gets to a black hole, the slower time moves. Essentially time comes to a stand still inside a black hole. Within a blackhole, time doesn't exist (this is a fixed law of nature). A state similar to the moment right before the big bang. Similarly, if you could go back in time the Universe would shrink until the all the mass became so infinitesimally small that it's properties resemble that of a black hole. What science calls the singularity, is essentially an infinitesimally small and infinitely dense blackhole (a state of no time - again based on a fixed law of nature)
"You can't get to a time before the big bang, because there was no before the big bang. Science has finally found something that doesn't have a cause, because there was no time for the cause to exist in."
Hawkins has undeniably used science to come up with a working hypothesis, absolute proof isn't necessary. For decades the scientific theory of flight was incorrect, it was never proved, but that didn't stop humans creating machines that fly based on the working hypothesis put forward. The problem is, you can't dispute Hawkins theory because you don't have the requisite knowledge needed, you don't even have the rudimentary knowledge needed to understand it. Science requires a rigid validation process, they just don't make claims and then say they are true. If you claim time doesn't exist in a black hole, then you need to prove it, and to do such a thing requires a deep understanding of physics, maths and cosmology. They aren't claims made lightly. It is unlikely in a thousand lifetimes you could develop the knowledge to debunk Hawkins theories.
And the majority of scientists don't believe in GOD, any assertion otherwise is simply wishful thinking and religious propaganda. Their is also a strong correlation between atheism and high IQ's.
-
I didn't say no evidence; I said no evidence that would satisfy you. And you just confirmed that I was right.
The problem is that there is no relevant evidence - evidence that can be objectively verified. Typically the 'evidence' that theists most often present boil down to: "well, I don't know how this could have happened, but it has, therefore God" and "I am repeating what I said before in a slightly different way but I say nothing new. HA! What will you do now? GOD IS GREAT! EVERYONE ELSE'S FALSE GODS SUCK!"
If you believe you can provide evidence that God exists that can be objectively verified and stand up to rational scrutiny, then I'm very interested in debating the topic. Please start, if you will, by providing a fallacy-free, consistent and logical description for the term "God". We can proceed from there.
-
I didn't say no evidence; I said no evidence that would satisfy you. And you just confirmed that I was right.
I know you didn't say there was no evidence for GOD. That's what I said, because it is a fact. There is zero evidence for GOD. Therefore there isn't any evidence to present to secure your argument. If there was evidence, you would be able to offer it up, but there is none.
Imagine you told me there was a law of gravity, and because of this law every time you dropped a rock it would fall to the earth. Imagine I told you that was rubbish, I believed the rock would float upward. To prove your point you repeatedly drop the rock and it always fell to the earth. Imagine I still held on to my belief and told you that no amount of evidence would convince you otherwise that I was right in believing the rock would float and just because you have evidence otherwise doesn't mean that gravity exists. There is zero evidence that would indicate that a dropped rock would defy gravity, and there is zero evidence that god exists.
-
E-kul, not to be a dick, but it's Hawking, bro. Not Hawkins.
lol Sorry, I am tired, I get hypnotically typing and who knows what can come out. If only they could clone Dawkins and Hawking to make a Hawkins.
-
Too use a famous quote, "Ignorance is bliss."
Enjoy trying to explain away God in your little mind. You seem desperate to prove it to yourself.
To use a famous quote, "scientia potentia est" :o
The burden of proof is on you my friend, your the one making making scientifically unfalsifiable claims. If I claim that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for me to expect others to believe me on the grounds that they cannot prove me wrong
I don't need to explain away god no more than I need to explain away the flying spaghetti monster. There is simply NO EVIDENCE for a god. Because I am an atheist, I find myself in the fortunate position of not having to explain away the multitude of gods that humans claim to exist, unlike you who has to explain why you have chosen to believe that one god exists while having to 'explain away' countless others.
Good luck explaining away Zeus, Helios, Odin, the flying spaghetti monster and the thousands of other gods you claim do not exist.
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-an-atheist-is-just-somebody-who-feels-about-yahweh-the-way-any-decent-christian-feels-about-thor-or-richard-dawkins-222960.jpg)
-
E-Kul, how about Abos "god" Vangina ;D
(or is vagina)
-
E-Kul, how about Abos "god" Vangina ;D
(or is vagina)
I couldn't find an aboriginal god name vangina, but when I googled it I clicked on the link to the urban dictionary and here is the defintion of vangina:
The huge mini van that is always driving really slowly infront of you when you're in a hurry. Often has semi-political/religious bumper stickers plastered to its peeling paint.
2. vangina
n. A vagina that is so ungodly huge that you could fit a van into it.
LOL
-
I found evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
(http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/1795100707_1371810859.gif)
End of Thread!
-
Darren, I'm online now waiting for your answer
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PY1ntwdqtcM/UnEvMLswTzI/AAAAAAAAClI/hO1jL_oO2pY/s1600/Doge.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/5stxHkf.gif)
What was your question?
-
basically science is a more refined form of religion
-
the clever thing about religion is it requires you too believe
that belief is not based on evidence but on wanting to believe
any debate based on different beliefs can go on for ever without ever coming to a conclusion
-
YOU GUYS ARE SO STUPID ERRRRRR
0 + 0 = 999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999 999999999999999.......
LET ME TRANSLATE
0 + 0 = EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE
OR
NOTHING = EVERYTHING
OR
THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED FROM NOTHING
YOU SEE YOU STUPID GOD BELIEVERS, THIS IS SCIENCE, LMAO :D
-
the clever thing about religion is it requires you too believe
like you know how to derive every conclusion in science or mathematics.
someone tells you so and so and you absorb it like a religious person.
such stress for nothing, lol
-
like you know how to derive every conclusion in science or mathematics.
someone tells you so and so and you absorb it like a religious person.
There's just one super-teeny-tiny difference. In science, it's possible to independently examine the evidence and verify the conclusions others have reached. Not that that's important at all... ::)
-
in heaven there seems to be no phones.
or has anyone received calls from heaven?
weird enough, same seems to be true for hell.
could it be these 2 concepts are just made up, much like the theories about how the universe came to be?
haha@sciene, so there was ,before time came into existence, some hot soup of photons, yeah right, i see.
and afterwards,everything was created.
totaly makes sense.
again, not defending the religious, but their claims are not further "out there" than what science tells us,with the self made rules.
i read plenty of svcientific work on this issue,got more than 10 books laying around, and in all them i had to call "stop,i smell bs" repeatedly.
they "eloquently" overstep a line and then start to make up things.
out of all books, 1 from a professor was honest, he was critial about both science and religion.
-
haha@sciene, so there was ,before time came into existence, some hot soup of photons, yeah right, i see.
Yes, "time" is a property of the Universe, and, as we understand it, is a meaningless term when divorced from that concept.
and afterwards,everything was created.
"created"?
totaly makes sense.
And just wait until you read about quantum mechanics, what with wave functions and quantum tunneling and entanglement!
i read plenty of svcientific work on this issue,got more than 10 books laying around, and in all them i had to call "stop,i smell bs" repeatedly.
Wow! More that 10 books? Is it even legal to own that many books you prodigious bookworm you! You, Sir, are a true polymath and what scientists strive to become. Just one question: how do you even find time to train with all the sciencing you do?!
-
yeah i read about quantum mechanics and "string theory", the writer himself said its all very much random still.
comeon 10+ books is better than nothing, as far the big bang theory(yes,i know this did happen theres no arguing there)goes,theyre all consistent.
i just cant accept that "time" came into being after BB, and that there was no space, yet there alegedly was a hot soup(how did it get hot?) of photons, i can see how they had no mass, therefore no matter.right?thats what they say?but energy was there and doesnt just get "created",tis is a rule of science isnt it?
come on,theres many things still unexplained.
-
yeah i read about quantum mechanics and "string theory", the writer himself said its all very much random still.
I don't know that "random" quite describes it.
i just cant accept that "time" came into being after BB, and that there was no space, yet there alegedly was a hot soup(how did it get hot?) of photons, i can see how they had no mass, therefore no matter.right?thats what they say?but energy was there and doesnt just get "created",tis is a rule of science isnt it?
Well, first of all, "hot" doesn't refer to temperature as in "I like my coffee hot - at least 110°C."
Yes, the principle conservation of energy is a fundamental concept. However, remember, that all these concepts only have meaning within the contextual framework of the Universe. But outside of the Universe? Who knows. That's not a topic that science tries to - or even can answer.
come on,theres many things still unexplained.
I agree. A lot of is still unexplained. I don't see this is a flaw or a fault.
-
yes, because temperatture didnt really exist as we know it now.
just like the sun sounds mute to us, despite permanent explosions.
btw,i find ihe topic highly interesting, enjoy reading about it, but jusr dislike when some scientists make up things, or try to pass unproven things as "widely accepted fact".
im full aware that the questions will eventualy be answered by science, not by the pope ;D ;D
but wh dont they as where the photons came from?
is it possible to create photons artificialy?
then the origin would have to be a similiar process.
and something else, the claim of black holes sucking up everything within event horizon, which was recently proven untrue, theres some matter that gets "refused" by the black holes, and the claim they dont even let light escape, when some of them explode into supernovas.
i know,im bit cherrypicking here, and othen its not the same scientists who claim conflicting things.but gets confusng if one claims something dogmaticonly to be proven wrong by other scientist later on.
the dogmatic tone,i dont like, science should be always dynamic and ready to adapt to new findings.some have problems admiting "this is currently our best guess".
its not a problem with scince,its more few personalities of scientist who dont like admiting there might be other explanantion.
cheers :D
-
There's just one super-teeny-tiny difference. In science, it's possible to independently examine the evidence and verify the conclusions others have reached. Not that that's important at all... ::)
I was pointing to the supposed difference in the attitude between religious people and those who have strong faith in science.
And if you needed to add more interesting matters to the discussion, paradoxes in the foundations of thought, boundaries of human knowledge,... could be mentioned.
but what would be the point?
all I see here is parroting...
-
-
Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.
Life it self is a mystery.
both (God and life) are difficult or impossible to understand or explain
Next question.
WoooSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH
-
Life it self is a mystery.
both (God and life) are difficult or impossible to understand or explain
Next question.
WoooSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH
To theists perhaps, but not necessarily to those who rely on science alone for knowledge of reality.
-
You didnt call out anyone specifically, huh? You wrote:
Getbig has helped me develop quite a thick skin and I'm now rather immune to the comments such as "blah, blah, blah", "flying spaghetti monster", "god botherer", "book of fairytales", etc.....and these are the nicer comments.
And I said, "Blah, blah, blah" in a few posts up. So, yes, indirectly you did call me out, even if not specifically.
And yes, everything I have said to you on here, I would say to you in person (even the blah, blah, blah). Because lets be honest, if that offends you, then you have no backbone. :-\ :-\
Come on now, I'm not gonna argue with you over "blah, blah, blah". If you said it great, if you didn't great.
Just stick that expression "blah, blah, blah" in the search feature and see how often it comes up.
None of these petty comments bother me anymore LOL. Of course I don't prefer them, but I dwell on them about as long as it takes me to read and process them. Still when they stockpile over time I like to stop and call a spade a spade.
My point was simple: no one would use those petty phrases in a face-to-face, but behind the safety of a monitor everything is fair game. Anonymity brings out true colors. Sure, in a face-to-face people will disagree, but non of the jabs would be there because the shield is gone. How do I know this? Simple, I have never had a face-to-face discussion with a believer or nonbeliever in which even the slightest insult was hurled my way, but online....LOL.....differ ent story. In fact, I've had face-to-face discussions that were completely civil that were later continued online and suddenly those I'm speaking to are "bolder and braver" LOL.
I'm not quite certain if the keyboard causes folks to say things they don't really mean or if the keyboard actually reveals who people truly are.
-
yes, because temperatture didnt really exist as we know it now.
just like the sun sounds mute to us, despite permanent explosions.
btw,i find ihe topic highly interesting, enjoy reading about it, but jusr dislike when some scientists make up things, or try to pass unproven things as "widely accepted fact".
im full aware that the questions will eventualy be answered by science, not by the pope ;D ;D
but wh dont they as where the photons came from?
is it possible to create photons artificialy?
then the origin would have to be a similiar process.
and something else, the claim of black holes sucking up everything within event horizon, which was recently proven untrue, theres some matter that gets "refused" by the black holes, and the claim they dont even let light escape, when some of them explode into supernovas.
i know,im bit cherrypicking here, and othen its not the same scientists who claim conflicting things.but gets confusng if one claims something dogmaticonly to be proven wrong by other scientist later on.
the dogmatic tone,i dont like, science should be always dynamic and ready to adapt to new findings.some have problems admiting "this is currently our best guess".
its not a problem with scince,its more few personalities of scientist who dont like admiting there might be other explanantion.
cheers :D
great post gal, you just described avxo and ekul, they both are so hard headed that they can not accept the fact that science can not explain the origins of time, space and matter. Then they say, ''science'' they hi-jack the word like it is suppose to stamp the acceptance automatically.
clustering all the energy of the entire universe in a singularity or a tiny little dot does not tell us where the energy comes from.
Then the same old argument by these 2 lunatics that we have not read books, yayaya, we know, if we do not believe nothing created everything then we are stupid.
-
Mein Kampf outsells Bible on Amazon.com
what more evidence is needed :D
-
Religion is shit but i believe in God, hear me out. Look at the universe, how intelligent it all is, look how complicated yur brains is. Someone designed that. It did nt happen because some rocks blew up in space!
-
you guys are retards; because science and evolution theory leads to the conclusion that ultimately we will become gods, God. Science proves God exists; an almighty life form that is eternal and creates life from scratch. Now maybe we wont be able to reach god status if we destroy ourselves or are destroyed by some random event. Now what is random and what isnet. God probably created random stuf and stuff that isnt random.
-
Agreed. Yet they will keeping claiming they are smart and the rest of us must all be ignorant since we don't believe the way they do about nothing exploding into everything.
I believe the issue is that many atheists demand scientific evidence for the existence of G-d. But there is no scientific evidence. It really is a different conceptual framework - the theist versus the atheist viewpoint. The existence or non-existence of G-d cannot be established by science.
I accept all the truths that we have discovered through science, and I absolutely agree that science is mankind's best method for understanding nature.
But I don't believe that what can be decided by science exhausts reality.
-
YOU are claiming the big bang is true. You are also claiming there is no God. Verify your claims for us pseudo-scientist!
Where did the matter come from to make the dot that began spinning faster and faster until pooof it exploded and we all got here? Where did the energy come from to make it spin and explode? Where did the space come from to put the matter in? Where did the laws of the universe come from? Where did time originate? Why are some planets, moons and galaxies spinning in different directions, I mean after all, if we all came from a big bang, then according to the laws of science they would all be spinning the same direction. Where did the elements come from? Where do stars come from, we see them die, but no one has ever witness a star forming, yet there are trillions of them. There isn't even a decent theory on how they got here.
You are a desperate individual trying to prove to yourself and others what you BELIEVE about where we came from. But at the end of the day, it is just that...what YOU BELIEVE. Science is NOT on your side in this issue, and if you believe it is, then you are more blind than I thought.
The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain everything, nor does it claim to. It merely suggests a theoretical account of the origin of the Universe based on scientific principles. It merely posits that through the fixed laws of nature (probably gravity) a singularity exploded causing rapid expansion that still continues today. The laws of Nature may have been introduced by a GOD, but it certainly isn't the God of the bible or one who intervenes in human affairs. Such intervention would require that the fixed laws of nature be broken.
Why are God Botherers so insecure? Is it because science threatens their small worldview? Personally, I found the idea that there is NO GOD tremendously liberating and this can only add to the quality of life. It unlocks the shackles that religion has placed on humanity, and expands an individual's mind potential to no end. We are for the first time FREE! Free to think as we please, masters of our own fate. How Wonderful. There is NO GOD and we are free. No longer captive to a wrathful deity who created us imperfect and demands worship under threat of condemnation to an eternity of misery. Yes, NO GOD means I am FREE, like a prisoner released from prison after being condemned to a life sentence.
Religion and belief in GOD has only limited humanity, closed it's collective mind and pushed us to the brink of madness. Belief in GOD and religion is almost certainly a byproduct of some inherited trait that actually serves an evolutionary purpose. Unfortunately humans are burdened still with many unwanted evolutionary byproducts, so religion may remain for some time yet. But for those who didn't suffer the abuses of indoctrination, they are truly free, they have offered a helping hand to their enslaved neighbours, but as of yet they seem content to remain imprisoned.
Friedrich Nietzsche was right, God is dead and we killed him. But for those who have embraced it, rather than the Nihilism Nietzsche predicted, such a revelation only adds meaning to life, not takes it away.
-
read plenty of svcientific work on this issue,got more than 10 books laying around, and in all them i had to call "stop,i smell bs" repeatedly.
they "eloquently" overstep a line and then start to make up things.
out of all books, 1 from a professor was honest, he was critial about both science and religion.
^
-
I believe the issue is that many atheists demand scientific evidence for the existence of G-d. But there is no scientific evidence. It really is a different conceptual framework - the theist versus the atheist viewpoint. The existence or non-existence of G-d cannot be established by science.
I accept all the truths that we have discovered through science, and I absolutely agree that science is mankind's best method for understanding nature.
But I don't believe that what can be decided by science exhausts reality.
science just like everything that exists is a way to control, dominate nature, not simply "understand it"... we want to understand it to control it. We are animals and everything we do is underlied by animal impulses and goals; improve, adapt, control, survive, dominate. it Every single thing we enjoy doing we enjoy it because makes us feel dominant and controlling, dominating. When we learn stuff as teens we want to control them in order to flee the domination o our parents and to become independant and dominate others ourselves. We develop skills etc in order to take control of our lives, others. in order to flee the control of our parents.
-
The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain everything, nor does it claim to. It merely suggests a theoretical account of the origin of the Universe based on scientific principles. It merely posits that through the fixed laws of nature (probably gravity) a singularity exploded causing rapid expansion that still continues today. The laws of Nature may have been introduced by a GOD, but it certainly isn't the God of the bible or one who intervenes in human affairs. Such intervention would require that the fixed laws of nature be broken.
Why are God Botherers so insecure? Is it because science threatens their small worldview? Personally, I found the idea that there is NO GOD tremendously liberating and this can only add to the quality of life. It unlocks the shackles that religion has placed on humanity, and expands an individual's mind potential to no end. We are for the first time FREE! Free to think as we please, masters of our own fate. How Wonderful. There is NO GOD and we are free. No longer captive to a wrathful deity who created us imperfect and demands worship under threat of condemnation to an eternity of misery. Yes, NO GOD means I am FREE, like a prisoner released from prison after being condemned to a life sentence.
Religion and belief in GOD has only limited humanity, closed it's collective mind and pushed us to the brink of madness. Belief in GOD and religion is almost certainly a byproduct of some inherited trait that actually serves an evolutionary purpose. Unfortunately humans are burdened still with many unwanted evolutionary byproducts, so religion may remain for some time yet. But for those who didn't suffer the abuses of indoctrination, they are truly free, they have offered a helping hand to their enslaved neighbours, but as of yet they seem content to remain imprisoned.
Friedrich Nietzsche was right, God is dead and we killed him. But for those who have embraced it, rather than the Nihilism Nietzsche predicted, such a revelation only adds meaning to life, not takes it away.
where did the energy that was in this singularity come from? if you do not know then you do not know the origins of space time and matter, all you did here is convert the energy to a singularity and claimed this is its scientific origins when reality is you do not know where the energy contained in the singularity came from, which is why you are stupid for arguing with me for 2 pages when at the end you just end up with the conclusion I came up with and that is no one knows.
-
great post gal, you just described avxo and ekul, they both are so hard headed that they can not accept the fact that science can not explain the origins of time, space and matter. Then they say, ''science'' they hi-jack the word like it is suppose to stamp the acceptance automatically.
Please refrain from explaining my position on my behalf, especially when I'm around to do it myself and when you seem to not only be completely unfamiliar with my actual position but, also, completely incapable of articulating what position is despite the fact that I've explained it in several other threads on here.
My position has, consistently, been that the word "time" and the concept of time and temporal causality as we understand it is meaningless outside of the framework of the Universe. If you disagree with this position, please proceed to provide a definition of time that is independent from the Universe. Please do the same for "space" and "matter". And... three... two... one... go!
clustering all the energy of the entire universe in a singularity or a tiny little dot does not tell us where the energy comes from.
I never claimed it did, and you are welcome to try and find a single quote from me that contradicts that. Take your time.
Then the same old argument by these 2 lunatics that we have not read books, yayaya, we know, if we do not believe nothing created everything then we are stupid.
Who's the lunatic here? The guy who says "well, here is a theory, which attempts to explain these observations. The theory makes these testable predictions which, so far, seem to hold. So we feel pretty good about this theory right now, but if new evidence comes to light that contradicts it, oh well! We'll go back to the drawing board."
Or the guy who says: "The magical sky creature created everything because everything needs to be created, except the magical sky creature. It created everything perfect, but the silly snake tricked the perfect beings into becoming imperfect by eating a fruit. So perfection became imperfect, and that's why you're born a sinner and will burn in hell, because the magical sky creature has decreed that the wages of sin is death. But, luckily, this magical sky creature loves you so much so he will sacrifice himself to himself so as to satisfy his bloodlust, thereby stripping you of your sin and sanctifying you. That way you can live after death as some kind of disembodied spirit up in the sky, and you will spend eternity worshipping the magical sky creature and you will be really happy, because sky creature! I know all this because a book, that is supposedly immutable (despite containing multiple revisions) and inerrant (despite containing multiple errors) told me so. And the book is the word of the magical sky creature. Which created everything because everything needs to be created, except the magical sky creature and we're back at the beginning. Amen."
It's rich that a man whose worldview revolves around gaining knowledge in unknowable ways through unknowable means and is based on fairy tales written by sheep herders and compiled into a grimoire that has plagued mankind for centuries calls others lunatics. So take a step back and reconsider asshole; you know, the whole throwing stones in glass houses and whatnot.
-
'God is life. Life is everything'
Barry Long
-
'God is life. Life is everything'
Barry Long
As nice as this sounds, it's meaningless. What does it mean to say "God is life"? How is "God" like "life"? How is "life" "everything"? How is this different than saying "God is a potato. Potatoes are tasty!"?
-
As nice as this sounds, it's meaningless. What does it mean to say "God is life"? How is "God" like "life"? How is "life" "everything"? How is this different than saying "God is a potato. Potatoes are tasty!"?
God is potato as well.
-
I doubt you are really looking for the truth, but I'll answer your question anyways in case I'm wrong, or perhaps others would like to know.
Three things are required for the universe to exist: time, space, and matter.
If God created the universe, which means he created time, space, and matter, then he must exist outside of time, space, and matter. You can't create something new if you are already bound by the thing you are creating.
You know the word "universe" means "a single spoken sentence." God created this entire place in a single spoken sentence in Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(time) (space) (matter)
You asshole, Universe does not mean "a single spoken sentence" as is known today, it;s all that exists by definition.
thus the postulation that god existed outside the universe is like saying what was before the big bang, it's nonsensical.
Also, isn't heaven in christianity a place, where people live? clearly this is not space, I find your interpretation odd.
-
where did the energy that was in this singularity come from? if you do not know then you do not know the origins of space time and matter, all you did here is convert the energy to a singularity and claimed this is its scientific origins when reality is you do not know where the energy contained in the singularity came from, which is why you are stupid for arguing with me for 2 pages when at the end you just end up with the conclusion I came up with and that is no one knows.
I am unsure why you seem so enraged by the bigbang theory, It's like you think that if science can't answer your ridiculous questions then that automatically means GOD did it. It's called the God of the gaps fallacy . Religious Nutters assume that if science can't answer there most pressing concerns then that is evidence for GOD, an absurd proposition at best. It is simply a variant of the 'argument from ignorance fallacy'.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
In other words you realise the impossibility of providing evidence for GOD, so you shift the burden to others and say disprove it, and we end up back at the flying spaghetti monster again. I claim flying spaghetti monster exists, you can't disprove it, and yet a believer in GOD would consider this proposition absurd even though it is the same proposition he offers when claiming GOD exists.
Your argument is the equivalent of someone from a time where everyone believed the world was flat because when you went to the beach you could see a horizon that looked like an edge and that if someone was to swim in that direction they would be sure to fall off. At that time, due to their being insufficient investigation into the matter, that argument would have sufficed to appeal to other flat world believers. Just because a matter has not recieved enough investigation to uncover the truth of the matter, doesn't mean that you can fill the gap with whatever story you like and call it truth.
It's like watching a magic act and remaining ignorant of how the magician saws a woman in half and telling yourself an act of magic just happened or he did indeed saw a woman in half. Some people when the truth is withheld from them can't stand the not knowing, so they make up stories to appease themselves and make sense of the event, never mind that what they tell themselves is in all probability false. The limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true.
-
picture the universe as you know it. the planets, the stars etc. that's your life. each planet or star in your universe represents an event you either have or have not visited yet. there is no 'time'. the past the present and the future have already happened and are happening now. the only thing that exists is this exact moment. our reality is a two dimensional construct. all that you know for certain is what you can sense with your 5 senses at this exact moment. if I look up for where I'm sitting I see a wall. behind that wall is nothing. my reality tells me it's a kitchen behind that wall since my memory tells me so. but is it really there? until I get up and walk into it it simply does not exist until that point in time.
do I create this reality then? no. I don't create this reality. there are unspeakably evils in the this world that I cannot comprehend. technology I cannot comprehend. if so, then who's reality is this? I am living the reality of a higher being who has created all this.
your life as you know it is a movie. your role scripted and already laid out for you. yes it is predestined- that is why we have an instilled moral compass and inate ability to know right from wrong. it keeps us on that path. you are a character in this movie who had been given emotion, feelings and intelligence by it's creator so that each person on this 'movie' can react in accordance with each other cast member. but unlike the movies we watch to find out what happens at the end, the creators interest lies in watching how the drama unfolds until the final scene.
the problem with science in trying to explain 'our existence' is that it's people with limited intelligence trying to explain something of a magnitude they could never ever comprehend. we are but pigs wallowing in mud.
-
picture the universe as you know it. the planets, the stars etc. that's your life. each planet or star in your universe represents an event you either have or have not visited yet. there is no 'time'. the past the present and the future have already happened and are happening now. the only thing that exists is this exact moment. our reality is a two dimensional construct. all that you know for certain is what you can sense with your 5 senses at this exact moment. if I look up for where I'm sitting I see a wall. behind that wall is nothing. my reality tells me it's a kitchen behind that wall since my memory tells me so. but is it really there? until I get up and walk into it it simply does not exist until that point in time.
do I create this reality then? no. I don't create this reality. there are unspeakably evils in the this world that I cannot comprehend. technology I cannot comprehend. if so, then who's reality is this? I am living the reality of a higher being who has created all this.
your life as you know it is a movie. your role scripted and already laid out for you. yes it is predestined- that is why we have an instilled moral compass and inate ability to know right from wrong. it keeps us on that path. you are a character in this movie who had been given emotion, feelings and intelligence by it's creator so that each person on this 'movie' can react in accordance with each other cast member. but unlike the movies we watch to find out what happens at the end, the creators interest lies in watching how the drama unfolds until the final scene.
hey man good to see you back
-
hey man good to see you back
cheers dude good to be back. :)
-
picture the universe as you know it. the planets, the stars etc. that's your life. each planet or star in your universe represents an event you either have or have not visited yet. there is no 'time'. the past the present and the future have already happened and are happening now. the only thing that exists is this exact moment. our reality is a two dimensional construct. all that you know for certain is what you can sense with your 5 senses at this exact moment. if I look up for where I'm sitting I see a wall. behind that wall is nothing. my reality tells me it's a kitchen behind that wall since my memory tells me so. but is it really there? until I get up and walk into it it simply does not exist until that point in time.
do I create this reality then? no. I don't create this reality. there are unspeakably evils in the this world that I cannot comprehend. technology I cannot comprehend. if so, then who's reality is this? I am living the reality of a higher being who has created all this.
your life as you know it is a movie. your role scripted and already laid out for you. yes it is predestined- that is why we have an instilled moral compass and inate ability to know right from wrong. it keeps us on that path. you are a character in this movie who had been given emotion, feelings and intelligence by it's creator so that each person on this 'movie' can react in accordance with each other cast member. but unlike the movies we watch to find out what happens at the end, the creators interest lies in watching how the drama unfolds until the final scene.
the problem with science in 'our existence' is that it's people with limited intelligence trying to explain something of a magnitude they could never ever comprehend. we are but pigs wallowing in mud.
I think we have found a suitable challenger to take the Falcon on as the craziest Getbigger.
-
I think we have found a suitable challenger to take the Falcon on as the craziest Getbigger.
lol I have a peace my friend that many struggle their whole lives to attain but never reach. your words are meant to insult but instead gives me comfort. what comforts me more is that my journey is not done. I'm still growing and evolving as a person. that fact I felt that I needed to respond to you with this post shows me that.
and therein lies the beauty of life for me.
cheers.
-
lol I have a peace my friend that many struggle their whole lives to attain but never reach. your words are me are meant to insult but instead gives me comfort. what comforts me more is that my journey is not done. I'm still growing and evolving as a person. that fact I felt that I needed to respond to you with this post shows me that.
and therein lies the beauty of life for me.
cheers.
I never intend to offend or insult anyone, my goal is to always express myself as forthrightly and honestly as I can at any given moment. If that happens to offend others, I have no control over that. It's just that I value my personal integrity and commitment to being as genuine as possible in higher regard than the whimsical sensitivities of others. From my perspective, your post did border on the nonsensical and resembled a written word salad, it reminded me of the nonsense posts that Falcon writes. That is all.
-
I never intend to offend or insult anyone, my goal is to always express myself as forthrightly and honestly as I can at any given moment. If that happens to offend others, I have no control over that. It's just that I value my personal integrity and commitment to being as genuine as possible in higher regard than the whimsical sensitivities of others. From my perspective, your post did border on the nonsensical and resembled a written word salad, it reminded me of the nonsense posts that Falcon writes. That is all.
trust me bro I am no more insulted by your words than I am impressed at your own self aggrandisation.
you feel your intellect is that much more superior to those around you that you say the things that you have in this post.
have I attacked your opinions or beliefs? no. why? because they don't matter to me. perhaps you'd be better suited to finding confidence in your own beliefs than attacking the beliefs of others. maybe then being 'right' and everyone else being 'wrong' wouldnt be such a priority for you.
stop and wonder why that is some time.
-
I never intend to offend or insult anyone, my goal is to always express myself as forthrightly and honestly as I can at any given moment. If that happens to offend others, I have no control over that. It's just that I value my personal integrity and commitment to being as genuine as possible in higher regard than the whimsical sensitivities of others. From my perspective, your post did border on the nonsensical and resembled a written word salad, it reminded me of the nonsense posts that Falcon writes. That is all.
Other people have personal integrity and commitment, too. Just so you know.
Why are other's sensitivities "whimsical"? Are yours whimsical? Maybe you think that theists have whimsical sensitivities because they believe in something you don't. Don't wanna put words in your mouth, though.
It is ridiculous to try to convert anyone from/to atheism/theism by argument. Usually a total waste of time and people just get pissed off.
-
Other people have personal integrity and commitment, too. Just so you know.
Why are other's sensitivities "whimsical"? Are yours whimsical? Maybe you think that theists have whimsical sensitivities because they believe in something you don't. Don't wanna put words in your mouth, though.
It is ridiculous to try to convert anyone from/to atheism/theism by argument. Usually a total waste of time and people just get pissed off.
I am unsure why you point out that other people have personal integrity and commitment. Are you suggesting that I should attempt not to offend them because of this. And other peoples sensitivities are whimsical because some get easily offended by everything, some by only a few things and others by nearly nothing. There is no way of telling, so best to ignore the sensibilities of others, that's what is wrong with the world, people lack honesty and this is reinforced by such views as political correctness which only exacerbates the problem creating crybabies who are offended at the slightest perceived insult. And I wasn't just referring to theists, the moronic masses are just whimsical by nature, chopping and changing as often as the wind does. I myself have no problem if people hate me or wish to offend me. My sense of self sees such attempts slide of me like rain slides of a newly waxed car.
I agree it is ridiculous to try and convert people, unfortunately this is a core tenet of religion (evangelicalism) and unwilling participants have been targeted for centuries. I do not wish to convert anyone, as atheism isn't a religion. I simply oppose what I consider a dangerous ideology, one that has negatively impacted civilisation since it's inception. I also despise intellectual laziness, deception and indoctrination, also tenets of religion. If atheists/agnostics are forced to live in societies that contain large numbers of people who practise such foolishness, then they have every right to oppose it. As I appreciated those atheists/agnostics before me who spoke honestly about their convictions, I do it not to convert people, but to set the same example and to show people their are alternative ways of thinking/being.
If religion ceased to exist, I would never discuss my beliefs regarding the issue, the same couldn't be said for Religious people, if atheism disappeared, they would still be banging on about God and miracles and blah, blah, blah. and all trying to convert each other to their particular brand of stupidity. Religion has given people permission to stop thinking, and if it wasn't for atheists and those who were humble enough to admit that they don't know, we may all be still stuck in the dark ages.
-
at the end of the day we re all animals killing instead of being killed hoping to get the carrot after they defeated the baton.
-
hey noone, that was a phenomenal description.
btw, do the atheists wish there was no god, or would they mind?
they come off as there cant be one and period.
its better to say not sure.
"oz" you look absolutely great,i see you went all the way. 8)
-
hey noone, that was a phenomenal description.
btw, do the atheists wish there was no god, or would they mind?
they come off as there cant be one and period.
its better to say not sure.
"oz" you look absolutely great,i see you went all the way. 8)
God helped me to achieve that. ;D
lol I wish. It is a small pic and you cannot see properly there is still a bit of fat around stomach area but to get rid of that I would need to go extreme with calories cut. At this stage I have increased cardio
and will see in a next few weeks how is that going to work. If not working, will go crazy with calories cut (your style) and get there. It was quite draining to do this diet since June but I am different man I was 6 months ago.
-
I am unsure why you point out that other people have personal integrity and commitment. Are you suggesting that I should attempt not to offend them because of this. And other peoples sensitivities are whimsical because some get easily offended by everything, some by only a few things and others by nearly nothing. There is no way of telling, so best to ignore the sensibilities of others, that's what is wrong with the world, people lack honesty and this is reinforced by such views as political correctness which only exacerbates the problem creating crybabies who are offended at the slightest perceived insult. And I wasn't just referring to theists, the moronic masses are just whimsical by nature, chopping and changing as often as the wind does. I myself have no problem if people hate me or wish to offend me. My sense of self sees such attempts slide of me like rain slides of a newly waxed car.
I agree it is ridiculous to try and convert people, unfortunately this is a core tenet of religion (evangelicalism) and unwilling participants have been targeted for centuries. I do not wish to convert anyone, as atheism isn't a religion. I simply oppose what I consider a dangerous ideology, one that has negatively impacted civilisation since it's inception. I also despise intellectual laziness, deception and indoctrination, also tenets of religion. If atheists/agnostics are forced to live in societies that contain large numbers of people who practise such foolishness, then they have every right to oppose it. As I appreciated those atheists/agnostics before me who spoke honestly about their convictions, I do it not to convert people, but to set the same example and to show people their are alternative ways of thinking/being.
If religion ceased to exist, I would never discuss my beliefs regarding the issue, the same couldn't be said for Religious people, if atheism disappeared, they would still be banging on about God and miracles and blah, blah, blah. and all trying to convert each other to their particular brand of stupidity. Religion has given people permission to stop thinking, and if it wasn't for atheists and those who were humble enough to admit that they don't know, we may all be still stuck in the dark ages.
I think you want to refer to fickle sensitivities or irrational sensitivities rather than "whimsical" ones.
Sorry I misunderstood you.
-
hey noone, that was a phenomenal description.
btw, do the atheists wish there was no god, or would they mind?
they come off as there cant be one and period.
its better to say not sure.
"oz" you look absolutely great,i see you went all the way. 8)
All religious people are atheists of a sort, they reject all other Gods except the one the choose to believe in. Atheists just go one god further. And I don't think atheists "wish" their was no god, anymore than they wish their was no flying spaghetti monster. If anything, the accusation is the other way around, some people are so desperate for there to be a "GOD' they will discard their critical thinking abilities and accept such an assertion with absolutely zero proof. I don't think you could find a greater example of desperation. Atheists are rational thinkers and expect evidence when others make phenomenal claims. And as of yet there is zero evidence of the existence of GOD. As an atheist/agnostic I would be equally fascinated at either possibility. If their is a GOD,that is a mind blowing concept, and if their isn't one, that is equally compelling and fascinating.
Like Hawkins pointed out, religious belief is more than likely a byproduct of some other essential evolutionary survival skill. Like a child needing to trust the adults around them would be essential to their survival. Faith really is a form of gullibility, it ensures survival for young people but looks ridiculous on an adult. That's why they call it indoctrination, the adult is incapable of shaking of the beliefs that were drilled into them as a child, and this is why they say teaching a child religion before they come of age is abuse, it likely crushes their critical thinking skills and prevents them developing the ability to develop a scientific worldview.
-
hey noone, that was a phenomenal description.
btw, do the atheists wish there was no god, or would they mind?
they come off as there cant be one and period.
its better to say not sure.
"oz" you look absolutely great,i see you went all the way. 8)
I don't think anyone can say anything is 'fact'.
I find it peculiarly funny yet telling of our supposed intelligence when all our 'beliefs' come from the ideas or words of other men. people who are as of limited intelligence as the rest of us, using a language, created by man, to express their ideas, thoughts and beliefs as 'proofs'. tell me how ridiculous this is. now you see why I say we are all but pigs wallowing in mud.
if only we searched in ourselves for the answers we seek, without being coloured by the beliefs of others. if only we weren't so blind as to fully grasp the enormity of our own inconsequence we might begin to find the answers that escape us.
-
I don't think anyone can say anything is 'fact'.
I find it peculiarly funny yet telling of our supposed intelligence when all our 'beliefs' come from the ideas or words of other men. people who are as of limited intelligence as the rest of us, using a language, created by man, to express their ideas, thoughts and beliefs as 'proofs'. tell me how ridiculous this is. now you see why I say we are all but pigs wallowing in mud.
if only we searched in ourselves for the answers we seek, without being coloured by the beliefs of others. if only we weren't so blind as to fully grasp the enormity of our own inconsequence we might begin to find the answers that escape us.
yes our reality is kinda overrated, our sense for reality, we dont hear many soundwaves,but theyre there, we dont see x rays with our eyes but theyre there.
hell we dont even see the air, but its there.
however im all for honest scienc if everyone can learn something from it, keyword learn, not benefit.
and the religious ppl could be bit more tolerant in thinkng and acceptance of others, and believers of other religions.
it mustnt mean that god looks as described in the bible, sure it says he made us in his mirrror or whatever the saying is(im the case in point btw ;D ) but theres no accurate descrition,it could all be interpreted metaphoricaly.
god could be that force that made the bigang happen, thatd be my conclusion, and id rather call it creating force.the ten commandments are just minor ammendments(and the laws in nations are indirectly originated from them in a way often),bc the humans would smash eachothers skulls in to no end if it wasnt for certain rules.
some romantic anarchists will disagree,but for every peaceful anarchist,i know 2 absolute psychopaths who would murder them just for fun if there was no rules.
-
I don't think anyone can say anything is 'fact'.
I find it peculiarly funny yet telling of our supposed intelligence when all our 'beliefs' come from the ideas or words of other men. people who are as of limited intelligence as the rest of us, using a language, created by man, to express their ideas, thoughts and beliefs as 'proofs'. tell me how ridiculous this is. now you see why I say we are all but pigs wallowing in mud.
if only we searched in ourselves for the answers we seek, without being coloured by the beliefs of others. if only we weren't so blind as to fully grasp the enormity of our own inconsequence we might begin to find the answers that escape us.
Of course we can say things are fact, this is the very basis of scientific enquiry. Without their being fixed laws, the modern world wouldn't exist as it is today. Gravity for instance is a FACT, 2 +2 = 4 is a fact. The speed of light being constant is a fact. Scientific facts enabled electricity, cars, planes etc etc.. If you didn't accept these facts, you wouldn't drive or fly. I think your proposition absolutely absurd.
And not all men are created equal, not everyone is of limited intelligence as you. Science isn't expressing their thoughts and beliefs as proofs, you obviously have no concept of the way science works. Science is based on evidence, it needs to be verifiable, if a thought or a belief cannot be verified, then it is discarded.
It sounds like you have had a few too many hits from the bong. I don't know if you have been paying attention, but humanity has been finding countless answers to it's questions, and not by some mystical 'looking within' but by hard work, learning and scientific principles. I think your assertion that we are all pigs wallowing in the mud is simply a projection of your own unconscious assessment of your life.
-
yes our reality is kinda overrated, our sense for reality, we dont hear many soundwaves,but theyre there, we dont see x rays with our eyes but theyre there.
hell we dont even see the air, but its there.
however im all for honest scienc if everyone can learn something from it, keyword learn, not benefit.
and the religious ppl could be bit more tolerant in thinkng and acceptance of others, and believers of other religions.
it mustnt mean that god looks as described in the bible, sure it says he made us in his mirrror or whatever the saying is(im the case in point btw ;D ) but theres no accurate descrition,it could all be interpreted metaphoricaly.
god could be that force that made the bigang happen, thatd be my conclusion, and id rather call it creating force.the ten commandments are just minor ammendments(and the laws in nations are indirectly originated from them in a way often),bc the humans would smash eachothers skulls in to no end if it wasnt for certain rules.
some romantic anarchists will disagree,but for every peaceful anarchist,i know 2 absolute psychopaths who would murder them just for fun if there was no rules.
lol at the belief humans haven't been smashing each others skulls in because of religious moral principles. People have been smashing each others skulls in because of religion and not the other way around as you propose. Religion hasn't brought humanity together, but simply driven a wedge between it. Religion has been a divisive tool and only hindered humanities progress. And I couldn't help but think of this classic family guy scene when I read your post.
-
nah,lack of education.
not religion, that was the given reason, but all wars were fought because of money.
-
nah,lack of education.
not religion, that was the given reason, but all wars were fought because of money.
You obviously never heard of The Crusades.
-
He was born in 1947 in the tiny village of Thal, Austria a suburb of Graz.
Hope this helps.
-
Of course we can say things are fact, this is the very basis of scientific enquiry. Without their being fixed laws, the modern world wouldn't exist as it is today. Gravity for instance is a FACT, 2 +2 = 4 is a fact. The speed of light being constant is a fact. Scientific facts enabled electricity, cars, planes etc etc.. If you didn't accept these facts, you wouldn't drive or fly. I think your proposition absolutely absurd.
And not all men are created equal, not everyone is of limited intelligence as you. Science isn't expressing their thoughts and beliefs as proofs, you obviously have no concept of the way science works. Science is based on evidence, it needs to be verifiable, if a thought or a belief cannot be verified, then it is discarded.
It sounds like you have had a few too many hits from the bong. I don't know if you have been paying attention, but humanity has been finding countless answers to it's questions, and not by some mystical 'looking within' but by hard work, learning and scientific principles. I think your assertion that we are all pigs wallowing in the mud is simply a projection of your own unconscious assessment of your life.
Actually, he appears to have had just the right number of hits from the bong.
-
You asshole, Universe does not mean "a single spoken sentence" as is known today, it;s all that exists by definition.
thus the postulation that god existed outside the universe is like saying what was before the big bang, it's nonsensical.
Also, isn't heaven in christianity a place, where people live? clearly this is not space, I find your interpretation odd.
Can't people "live" in a "space"? We talk about "space" all the "time".
-
To theists perhaps, but not necessarily to those who rely on science alone for knowledge of reality.
Explain Life then ....
Ill check back in 2014.
WoooSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H
-
You asshole, Universe does not mean "a single spoken sentence" as is known today, it;s all that exists by definition.
thus the postulation that god existed outside the universe is like saying what was before the big bang, it's nonsensical.
Also, isn't heaven in christianity a place, where people live? clearly this is not space, I find your interpretation odd.
Talking about what came before the Big Bang is not at all nonsensical. Both you and I did it in our posts.
The difficulty is that there is no way to get any direct information about anything before the BB. But scientists talk about it all the time:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-what-came-before-the-big-bang
-
Mein Kampf outsells Bible on Amazon.com
what more evidence is needed :D
Ah, but people give away free bibles. I have one that was left on my doorstep. Brand spanking new. And hotels tend to have them as well.
-
Talking about what came before the Big Bang is not at all nonsensical. Both you and I did it in our posts.
The difficulty is that there is no way to get any direct information about anything before the BB. But scientists talk about it all the time:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-what-came-before-the-big-bang
You are still having trouble with the concept of time, aren't you. If there is no time, there is no before the big bang.
-
yes our reality is kinda overrated, our sense for reality, we dont hear many soundwaves,but theyre there, we dont see x rays with our eyes but theyre there.
hell we dont even see the air, but its there.
however im all for honest scienc if everyone can learn something from it, keyword learn, not benefit.
and the religious ppl could be bit more tolerant in thinkng and acceptance of others, and believers of other religions.
it mustnt mean that god looks as described in the bible, sure it says he made us in his mirrror or whatever the saying is(im the case in point btw ;D ) but theres no accurate descrition,it could all be interpreted metaphoricaly.
god could be that force that made the bigang happen, thatd be my conclusion, and id rather call it creating force.the ten commandments are just minor ammendments(and the laws in nations are indirectly originated from them in a way often),bc the humans would smash eachothers skulls in to no end if it wasnt for certain rules.
some romantic anarchists will disagree,but for every peaceful anarchist,i know 2 absolute psychopaths who would murder them just for fun if there was no rules.
The ten commandments are utterly brilliant, definitely divinely inspired. lets look at the ten best rules to live by guys, written by the all-knowing.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me- Ok great rule to live by, really helpful.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.- ok he's insecure and sounds like kim jong ill a bit here
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Jesus christ, these are listed in order of importance are they?
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.can dig it
Thou shalt not kill.meh, like for food or murder? because killing is required to live, odd that the person who set this fucking thing up would have that stipulation
Thou shalt not commit adultery.meh
Thou shalt not steal.k
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.Never?
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
As you can see they leave out rape, incest, ethics etc. they are pretty fucking poor.
-
You are still having trouble with the concept of time, aren't you. If there is no time, there is no before the big bang.
I guess then physicists Alan Guth, Lee Smolin, and Leonard Susskind (among others) are also "having trouble with the concept of time" because they all have discussed the possibility that time did not begin with the Big Bang.
I don't think you even read the reference I posted or you would understand that.
-
Of course we can say things are fact, this is the very basis of scientific enquiry. Without their being fixed laws, the modern world wouldn't exist as it is today. Gravity for instance is a FACT, 2 +2 = 4 is a fact. The speed of light being constant is a fact. Scientific facts enabled electricity, cars, planes etc etc.. If you didn't accept these facts, you wouldn't drive or fly. I think your proposition absolutely absurd.
And not all men are created equal, not everyone is of limited intelligence as you. Science isn't expressing their thoughts and beliefs as proofs, you obviously have no concept of the way science works. Science is based on evidence, it needs to be verifiable, if a thought or a belief cannot be verified, then it is discarded.
It sounds like you have had a few too many hits from the bong. I don't know if you have been paying attention, but humanity has been finding countless answers to it's questions, and not by some mystical 'looking within' but by hard work, learning and scientific principles. I think your assertion that we are all pigs wallowing in the mud is simply a projection of your own unconscious assessment of your life.
all that you call 'fact' is meerly the value you have been taught to asign something.
why are you so angry? it's amusing to hear you attack people using an 'intelligence' that is not your own. not one word you have spoken, or idea you have relayed is a result of your own thought process. you are meerly a regurgitating puppet who places a high value on an intelligence that is no more his than it is anyone else's.
is this intelligence to you? regurgitating ideologies and thoughts of people who have come before you? if anything you are nothing better than a parasite feeding off of the original ideas of others in an attempt to make himself feel as learned as those who ideas they were in the first place.
some 'intellect' you are. lol come back when you have an original thought, sunshine, and floor us all with your wisdom and great intelligence.
don't worry I won't hold my breath I'll just anticipate more empty words, regurgitative speech and unoriginal thoughts.
i would suggest maybe it's better if you just stop posting altogether. but then I wouldn't get to see the clown with the floppy red shoes and big red nose and curly orange hair run around this thread juggling the ideas of others in an attempt to be the intellect he so desperately wishes he was.
-
Talking about what came before the Big Bang is not at all nonsensical. Both you and I did it in our posts.
The difficulty is that there is no way to get any direct information about anything before the BB. But scientists talk about it all the time:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-what-came-before-the-big-bang
Ya it is non-sensical by very definition since the big bang is the start of the space time continum, thus before is a temporal term as such using it to describe a point of no time is non-sensical.
-
Actually, he appears to have had just the right number of hits from the bong.
thanks man! I'm in a great place. what it is or where it is or what the purpose is I have no clue. all I know is that I'm here, and on a amazing journey that we call 'life'.
-
Ya it is non-sensical by very definition since the big bang is the start of the space time continum, thus before is a temporal term as such using it to describe a point of no time is non-sensical.
OK, so you know more than the people in the article, and you know more than Alan Guth, the inventor of Inflation.
How come we haven't heard of your contributions to physics, in that case?
-
Of course we can say things are fact, this is the very basis of scientific enquiry. Without their being fixed laws, the modern world wouldn't exist as it is today. Gravity for instance is a FACT, 2 +2 = 4 is a fact. The speed of light being constant is a fact. Scientific facts enabled electricity, cars, planes etc
it is a fact that we will improve ourselves and become immortal, Gods, and that at some point we will have to leave the planet and disseminate life somewhere else in the universe. It is a fact that studying and reverse engeenering life we might at some point be able to recreate it.
-
all that you call 'fact' is meerly the value you have been taught to asign something.
why are you so angry? it's amusing to hear you attack people using an 'intelligence' that is not your own. not one word you have spoken, or idea you have relayed is a result of your own thought process. you are meerly a regurgitating puppet who places a high value on an intelligence that is no more his than it is anyone else's.
is this intelligence to you? regurgitating ideologies and thoughts of people who have come before you? if anything you are nothing better than a parasite feeding off of and parroting the original ideas of others in an attempt to make himself seem as learned as those who ideas they were in the first place.
some 'intellect' you are. lol come back when you have an original thought, sunshine, and floor us all with your wisdom and great intelligence.
don't worry sparky I won't hold my breath I'll just anticipate more empty words, regurgitative speech and unoriginal thoughts.
i would suggest maybe it's better if you just stop posting altogether. but then I wouldn't get to see the clown with the floppy red shoes and big red nose and curly orange hair run around this thread juggling the ideas of others in an attempt to be the intellect he so desperately wishes he was.
Part of being intelligent is indeed the regurgitating of ideologies and thoughts of people who have come before me. The wisdom involved is knowing which information to regurgitate. Because according to your logic, Intelligence = originality, so someone could claim 2+2=5 and using your logic, and because they aren't regurgitating historical learning, they are Intelligent.
Further to this, I never claimed to be an Intellect, that is a label you have given me, I merely pointed out that you made the assumption that all men were of the same limited intelligence when you said "when all our 'beliefs' come from the ideas or words of other men. people who are as of limited intelligence as the rest of us". Suggesting that all men are of the same level of Intelligence. An absurd suggestion. To suggest that the brightest amongst us are as intellectually limited as the stupidest amongst us is ridiculous. Part of Intelligence is being able to recognise it in others, something you obviously lack based on your statement.
Those who are at the top of the Intelligence spectrum, have utilised the wisdom that has come before them and then added to or modified it to further enhance humanities stockpile of knowledge and wisdom. Intelligent people aren't simply repeating the wisdom of others, they are reworking it to make it their own. Just as some of the greatest guitar riffs are based on common scales, the learning of the scale is done by repetition and regurgitation (as you like to call it), the creation of the riff is the creative modification of that scale. That is Intelligence, and it couldn't have happened without the repetition and regurgitation of the learning by those who came before them
I think you have read one too many New Age Hippy Books. To quote your hippy wisdom "all that you call 'fact' is meerly the value you have been taught to asign something. sic". I often wonder how people who say and believe such things get through the day.
And to suggest a fact is a value I have been taught to assign something is a ridiculous assertion. A fact is something that is true regardless of the value I assign to it. It doesn't matter the value I assign to any fact taught to me. I could be taught to assign a value of five to the equation 2+2 and call it a fact. The 'assigned value' I was taught doesn't equal fact, nor will it ever.
Your accusation of being unoriginal means nothing to me, as it is obvious you are simply repeating New Age garbage as if it is your own thinking. The whole 'nothing is real, look within' garbage has been done to death.' All you are doing is what all these NewAge wankers do, and that's make vague pronouncements that ultimately mean nothing. Even the concept of the average punter being a 'repeater' is from the realm of Conspiracy Kooks like David Icke, who likes to use the term to mock those who don't believe that lizards run the planet. Next thing you know you will be telling me David Icke is on to it, and the rest of us are too indoctrinated by the Illuminati to know better.
Many of us have been through the same stage you have, believing we could possibly be living in a matrix or we could just be a 'Brain in a vat' and nothing is ultimately real and everything is subjective and positive affirmations work blah blah blah. Let me save you some time, all that newage garbage is just that, garbage. You keep going around claiming there is no such thing as a fact, you are likely to end up in a cozy padded cell.
And what makes you think you aren't regurgitating the ideologies and thoughts of people who have come before you? Serious question.
-
I guess then physicists Alan Guth, Lee Smolin, and Leonard Susskind (among others) are also "having trouble with the concept of time" because they all have discussed the possibility that time did not begin with the Big Bang.
I don't think you even read the reference I posted or you would understand that.
Yeah, but were not talking about Alan Guth, Lee Smolin, and Leonard Susskind's theories. We are talking about the theory that posits that time started at the big bang, under this paradigm it is pointless discussing what came before, as there is no before.
Maybe you should give us a brief overview of the alternate theories regarding time and the origins of the Universe.
-
OK, so you know more than the people in the article, and you know more than Alan Guth, the inventor of Inflation.
How come we haven't heard of your contributions to physics, in that case?
Time and temporal relations as we understand them are properties of this universe. It's possible that something similar existed "before" the Big Bang, and it is possible that our definitions could be extended to cover that concept too.
But time as we currently understand it started with the Big Bang according to the best theories we have available. You are welcome to produce specific quotes from the people whose names you mention suggesting otherwise.
I don't know why this seems so difficult and challenging to you.
-
OK, so you know more than the people in the article, and you know more than Alan Guth, the inventor of Inflation.
How come we haven't heard of your contributions to physics, in that case?
logical fallacy number one, straw man, I didn't say I knew more then the people in the article, logical fallacy two, appeal to authority.
No one knows, it's a philosophical question about something abstract, logic dictates by the definitions we use to define temporality negate the very question.
It's like asking what is outside the universe. It might be a million more universes, but as it stands, it is the totality of existenc thus the question is retarded.
-
I am not even going to bother to quote your words for they mean nothing. it's just more words.
as for 'what I know' or 'what I believe' I have found in myself. I don't read the opinions of others and take them as my own. the greatest thinkers of all time all had 'original' ideas thoughts and summations. 'gravity' did not exist until newton assigned a value to it. think of what else is out there that doesn't exist, that is waiting for an original thought to give it life.
lol new age. I haven't read one book, dissertation or opinion of another that has shapes what I 'know'. what I know has come thru a journey of self discovery. can you say the same?
c'mon e-kul, surely to GOD you've had ONE original idea though or belief that you haven sucked from the consciousness of another being. just ONE bro. no?
you can do it bro. instead of responding with a wall of text that says nothing inspire us all with your fucking brilliance.
please, show us all this great intellect you have bottled up inside you just waiting to explode forth.
start with an original though word or idea. you can do this can't you?
dazzle us all.
-
Time and temporal relations as we understand them are properties of this universe. It's possible that something similar existed "before" the Big Bang, and it is possible that our definitions could be extended to cover that concept too.
But time as we currently understand it started with the Big Bang according to the best theories we have available. You are welcome to produce specific quotes from the people whose names you mention suggesting otherwise.
I don't know why this seems so difficult and challenging to you.
I just watched this short youtube clip by Alan Guth about how The Universe might be infinite. Pretty deep stuff.
-
We got to keep on trucking every single day.
-
I just watched this short youtube clip by Alan Guth about how The Universe might be infinite. Pretty deep stuff.
I think it's very reasonable to assume the universe is infinite.
Should be a cool clip to watch....most likely a lot of it over my head LOL, but cool.
-
I am not even going to bother to quote your words for they mean nothing. it's just more words.
as for 'what I know' or 'what I believe' I have found in myself. I don't read the opinions of others and take them as my own. the greatest thinkers of all time all had 'original' ideas thoughts and summations. 'gravity' did not exist until newton assigned a value to it. think of what else is out there that doesn't exist, that is waiting for an original thought to give it life.
lol new age. I haven't read one book, dissertation or opinion of another that has shapes what I 'know'. what I know has come thru a journey of self discovery. can you say the same?
c'mon e-kul, surely to GOD you've had ONE original idea though or belief that you haven sucked from the consciousness of another being. just ONE bro. no?
you can do it bro. instead of responding with a wall of text that says nothing inspire us all with your fucking brilliance.
please, show us all this great intellect you have bottled up inside you just waiting to explode forth.
start with an original though word or idea. you can do this can't you?
dazzle us all.
The irony is I am being asked to demonstrate original thinking by someone who is yet to demonstrate their ability to do so. I would be interested to learn whose opinions you think I am repeating. Rather than pointing out others perceived deficiencies, why don't you try explaining what you mean. Offer a convincing argument as to why I lack original thought. Hell, even a simple demonstration of original thinking would be a good start. Original thinking only has value if it is superior to current thinking. I could create an original sentence like the following "are giants gathering nodules for supercilious modifications". Sure it's original alright, but it's just word salad, it doesn't mean anything. I think your desire for wanting to be an original thinker has clouded your assessment of what that actually means, and the path to achieving such a goal. Original thinking does not equal intelligent or meaningful thinking.
And if we look at thoughts in terms of their link to the uniqueness of each moment, then all thoughts are original, as they will never occur again, the context they occurred in is unique and by definition unrepeatable. If we look at original thought in more practical terms, there is no such thing as original thought independant of other thoughts.
Also, we were discussing your false assertion that facts don't exist, nothing to do with repeating the opinion of others. 2+2=4 isn't the opinion of someone else. It is mathematical fact. . In theory, there is no such thing as an original thought, as it is dependant on a chain of thinking and ideas. It may be considered an extension or adaptation of a train of thought, but it is not original as it is dependant on prior information. It is like saying the word 'getbigger' is original because prior to getbig it has never been uttered before, but it is simply a modification of the word 'getbig' using a grammatical principle to change the word 'getbig' from a noun to a verb. It's so called originality was dependant on other previously discovered principles.
All your propositions are absurd, the suggestion that gravity didn't exist until Newton assigned a value to it is the most imbecilic thing I have ever heard. Gravities existence is independant of anybody knowing about it. Even if gravity was never discovered it would continue to exist. I think part of your problem is you incorrectly assess reality. When you say 'think of what else is out there that doesn't exist, that is waiting for an original thought to give it life.'. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, no amount of thoughts can make it exist.
The discoveries of say something like gravity isn't due to original thinking. Human beings would have always understood that it exists, as the consistency of which it could be observed would have been undeniable. All that Newton did, using the collective knowledge that had been accumulated until that point in time, was find a way to articulate what it was and how it worked. This wasn't because he was an original thinker, most of the knowledge needed to explain the law was thanks to other great thinkers before him. He simply collaborated that knowledge, used his intellect to expand upon it and utilised scientific principles to explain his discovery.
You are deluded if you believe your thinking is independant of everyone elses. You are a product of the same environment every human being is.
Your acquired body of knowledge and opinions is a due to a web of interdependence. From the time you were born you have been taught ideas that you have modified to make your own. Just as the top floor of a skyscraper couldn't exist without the foundations below it, your thinking, your ideas couldn't exist without the historical foundations of collective knowledge and wisdom that came before it.
I think you misunderstand how great minds from the past developed their original ideas, they first learned the way everyone else does and then they added to that. Their genius didn't come from making a decision to think original thoughts. Their knowledge and wisdom was the accumulation of learning from countless great thinkers before them. Just as Hawkings Discoveries couldn't have happened without Einsteins discoveries that couldn't have happened without Galileo's discoveries and so forth.
I actually think you are seriously deluded, like seriously psychiatrically ill. This absurd notion that others haven't shaped youw worldview is the height of arrogance and indication of an inability to assess reality. It is obvious at the very least you are deeply narcisstic, having a deep need to believe you are some type of original thinker and your learning is from some magical source and not from where everyone else gets it, the world around them. Marilyn Manson is original, it doesn't stop him from being a fucking douchebag. Marilyn had the original thought to be the first man to get breast implants (so much for originality). Originality certainly does not equal intelligence. And your posts have descended into common insults, probably the lowest and most unoriginal form of wit known to man. You don't even attempt to explain your strange ideas, you just simply ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. HOW ORIGINAL.
This is why I compared you to Falcon when I read your original word salad post. Don't just take my opinion for it then, go run some of your ideas by the local psychiatrists, and see what they say. Tell the psychiatrist what you have said here, tell them that their life is a movie, that each planet or star in their universe represents an event they either have or have not visited yet. Tell them you believe you don't think anyone can say anything is 'fact'. That there is no 'time'. That the past the present and the future have already happened and are happening now. Get back to me and let me know how that goes for you.
Just because you claim to derive your knowledge from a journey of self discovery, doesn't mean you will come to any correct conclusions. A journey of self discovery is only necessary when you have exhausted the wisdom of others, to take such a journey without the appropriate foundation is like trying to teach yourself algebra without first being taught Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication & Division. For the uninitiated, a journey of self discovery could be the long way around to discovering oneself, it may even prevent you from doing so.
“The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men—but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite—that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.” - Mark Twain
-
I think it's very reasonable to assume the universe is infinite.
Should be a cool clip to watch....most likely a lot of it over my head LOL, but cool.
It has something to do with the stranger properties of space and time based on the theory of general relativity. If the Universe is inside some theoretical bubble, space time is tremendously distorted compared to outside the bubble. Inside the bubble we will perceive space as infinite, but from outside the bubble, what those in the bubble perceived as infinite space is actually finite time.
What the fuck this means, I have no idea. I look forward to a simpler explanation.
-
Aussie Hebrews god (or something ?) Vangina is painted as white fella ;D
Nothing is more stupid than some Asian TV preacher who wants to teach white
race about Jesus & Co.,
Why supposedly 'existing' god tolerates church phedofilia ::)
-
It has something to do with the stranger properties of space and time based on the theory of general relativity. If the Universe is inside some theoretical bubble, space time is tremendously distorted compared to outside the bubble. Inside the bubble we will perceive space as infinite, but from outside the bubble, what those in the bubble perceived as infinite space is actually finite time.
What the fuck this means, I have no idea. I look forward to a simpler explanation.
I hope you're not lookin to me for that explanation LOL!!
-
I hope you're not lookin to me for that explanation LOL!!
No. I doubt anyone here from Getbig could explain that in layman's terms.
-
I just watched this short youtube clip by Alan Guth about how The Universe might be infinite. Pretty deep stuff.
I haven't watched the video, but will do so when I have a moment.
It has something to do with the stranger properties of space and time based on the theory of general relativity. If the Universe is inside some theoretical bubble, space time is tremendously distorted compared to outside the bubble. Inside the bubble we will perceive space as infinite, but from outside the bubble, what those in the bubble perceived as infinite space is actually finite time.
What the fuck this means, I have no idea. I look forward to a simpler explanation.
Interesting. This is a similar argument to the one about someone who lives on the surface of a sphere and who perceives the surface that he is on to be infinite, since he can find no edges.
-
as I had anticipated.
I'll leave you to your nothingness.
-
yes our reality is kinda overrated, our sense for reality, we dont hear many soundwaves,but theyre there, we dont see x rays with our eyes but theyre there.
hell we dont even see the air, but its there.
however im all for honest scienc if everyone can learn something from it, keyword learn, not benefit.
and the religious ppl could be bit more tolerant in thinkng and acceptance of others, and believers of other religions.
it mustnt mean that god looks as described in the bible, sure it says he made us in his mirrror or whatever the saying is(im the case in point btw ;D ) but theres no accurate descrition,it could all be interpreted metaphoricaly.
god could be that force that made the bigang happen, thatd be my conclusion, and id rather call it creating force.the ten commandments are just minor ammendments(and the laws in nations are indirectly originated from them in a way often),bc the humans would smash eachothers skulls in to no end if it wasnt for certain rules.
some romantic anarchists will disagree,but for every peaceful anarchist,i know 2 absolute psychopaths who would murder them just for fun if there was no rules.
overrated compared to what baseline?
-
I kind of think this is a question better left unanswered. If the answer was truly known, mankind would find a way to fuck it all up.
-
Time and temporal relations as we understand them are properties of this universe. It's possible that something similar existed "before" the Big Bang, and it is possible that our definitions could be extended to cover that concept too.
But time as we currently understand it started with the Big Bang according to the best theories we have available. You are welcome to produce specific quotes from the people whose names you mention suggesting otherwise.
I don't know why this seems so difficult and challenging to you.
I do find understanding what time is quite difficult and challenging, and I think I am far from alone in that.
Until about ten or fifteen years ago, the conventional wisdom among all physicists was that time "started" with the Big Bang. Time, it was held, was only definable in terms of the relationships of events in the universe to each other, and so before the universe existed, there could be no time. This was also Hawking's position.
As a result of ongoing efforts going back to Einstein to create a unified field theory, string theory (along with supergravity) came to be a leading candidate to resolve the incompatibilities between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. A successor to string theory, originally proposed by Edward Witten, is M-theory. And a cosmological model of the origin of the universe within M-theory conceives of the following: There is a "bulk universe" in which perhaps an infinite number of n-dimensional "branes" exist (the bulk universe itself being of n+1 dimensions). Each of these branes can be thought of as "floating" in the bulk universe. Occasionally, two branes will collide, causing a Big Bang type event. The Big Bang that created our universe is one such event.
Now, if you want to argue that "bulk universe time" is different from time in our universe, be my guest. But, either way, there is a sense in which time extended before the Big Bang. Call it something else if you want, but that would be arbitrary, it seems to me.
Alan Guth, the originator of the theory of cosmological inflation, is currently working on inflationary models within the bulk universe construct (see Wikipedia article on Guth).
A variant of the bulk universe construct is the "multiverse", in which big bangs are also creating universes all the time. Lee Smolin has developed a kind of Darwinian theory of "survival" of the many universes created by big bangs in the multiverse. See his "Life of the Cosmos".
Leonard Susskind discusses the same ideas in "The Black Hole War".
I don't have a reference for Glashow, since my information on him is based on a conversation he and I had after I attended a panel discussion in which he participated, but perhaps my mention of Edward Witten will make up for that.
All of the above physicists are now or have been working on the above concepts, which involve events postulated to happen before the Big Bang.
-
what happened to your thread guys?
surely to fuck a discussion of this magnitude could go on for a lifetime.
but not amongst you. why is that?
it ground to a halt cause you don't have any more ideas that you can pirate and regurutate to makes yourselves feel intelligent.
bAhaha 11 pages by GB's elite in an attempt to unlock the universe. it's like watching monkeys trying to use chopsticks.
carry on, geniuses.
-
what happened to your thread guys?
surely to fuck a discussion of this magnitude could go on for a lifetime.
but not amongst you. why is that?
it ground to a halt cause you don't have any more ideas that you can pirate and regurutate to makes yourselves feel intelligent.
bAhaha 11 pages by GB's elite in an attempt to unlock the universe. it's like watching monkeys try to use chopsticks.
carry on, geniuses.
lol, a discussion about where did GOD come from shouldn't last a page. There is zero evidence for GOD, any assertion otherwise is simply the wishful thinking of frightened human beings. The fact the thread has had this much legs is testament to the desperation of god botherers and their utter inability to utilize critical thinking. It comes as no surprise that those who have chosen to suspend critical thinking for blind faith that they lack the needed skillset to think critically. This is just yet another abuse of religion, it has given God Botherers an excuse to stop thinking.
-
It comes as no surprise that those who have chosen to suspend critical thinking for blind faith that they lack the needed skillset to think critically.
lol what 'thinking' have you done in your life A-Fool?
newton was a great thinker. enstein. any of the Greek philosophers. anyone who postulises a theory not based on what they may have been exposed to in the past. the list of truely great thinkers is probably unfathomable in it's number. you? not so much. you're an ape. an ignorant just using the tools others have made.
lol @ you being a critical thinker. your no more a critical thinker than a student in grade 5 reciting his times tables.
if anything your a critical regurgitor, a parasitic flea on the balls of the intellect who have formed every idea in that vast cavernous void you call a consciousness.
don't flatter yourself by 'thinking' your anything more.
edit: fuck just trying to make sense of that disaterous butchery of the english language I quoted should be proof enough that your not quite the intellect you so badly desire to be.
carry on, ape.
-
lol, a discussion about where did GOD come from shouldn't last a page. There is zero evidence for GOD, any assertion otherwise is simply the wishful thinking of frightened human beings. The fact the thread has had this much legs is testament to the desperation of god botherers and their utter inability to utilize critical thinking. It comes as no surprise that those who have chosen to suspend critical thinking for blind faith that they lack the needed skillset to think critically. This is just yet another abuse of religion, it has given God Botherers an excuse to stop thinking.
I think the discussion ended because the OP demanded that those who believe in G-d provide proof for His existence according to the scientific method. That is not possible.
Seeing the universe as the creation of a transcendent intelligence gives purpose and meaning to life for many people. For them, the existence of the universe is sufficient proof that G-d exists. When these people have their doubts about their faith (as anyone does), they feel the doubt emotionally - as a deep void broadening. They don't experience it as an insight that some argument for the existence of G-d is wrong.
Atheists view the world entirely differently, and tend to think that nothing that cannot be established by science has meaning or reality. (They could of course be right.)
It is hard to see how any argument could possibly bridge that kind of gap.
Given that, all you had in this thread were the two opposing camps either shouting past each other, or preaching to the choir. And that gets old real quick.
-
lol what 'thinking' have you done in your life A-Fool?
newton was a great thinker. enstein. any of the Greek philosophers. anyone who postulises a theory not based on what they may have been exposed to in the past. the list of truely great thinkers is probably unfathomable in it's number. you? not so much. you're an ape. an ignorant just using the tools others have made.
lol @ you being a critical thinker. your no more a critical thinker than a student in grade 5 reciting his times tables.
if anything your a critical regurgitor, a parasitic flea on the balls of the intellect who have formed every idea in that vast cavernous void you call a consciousness.
don't flatter yourself by 'thinking' your anything more.
Once again, the same accusation repeated again and again, perhaps if you had of read my initial response to your unoriginal assertions, you might have stopped repeating yourself looking like a complete tool. I will re-post again, I doubt you will read it though, as it is quite long and requires the attention span of a functioning adult. But here goes anyway.
The irony is I am being asked to demonstrate original thinking by someone who is yet to demonstrate their ability to do so. I would be interested to learn whose opinions you think I am repeating. Rather than pointing out others perceived deficiencies, why don't you try explaining what you mean. Offer a convincing argument as to why I lack original thought. Hell, even a simple demonstration of original thinking would be a good start. Original thinking only has value if it is superior to current thinking. I could create an original sentence like the following "are giants gathering nodules for supercilious modifications". Sure it's original alright, but it's just word salad, it doesn't mean anything. I think your desire for wanting to be an original thinker has clouded your assessment of what that actually means, and the path to achieving such a goal. Original thinking does not equal intelligent or meaningful thinking.
And if we look at thoughts in terms of their link to the uniqueness of each moment, then all thoughts are original, as they will never occur again, the context they occurred in is unique and by definition unrepeatable. If we look at original thought in more practical terms, there is no such thing as original thought independant of other thoughts.
Also, we were discussing your false assertion that facts don't exist, nothing to do with repeating the opinion of others. 2+2=4 isn't the opinion of someone else. It is mathematical fact. . In theory, there is no such thing as an original thought, as it is dependant on a chain of thinking and ideas. It may be considered an extension or adaptation of a train of thought, but it is not original as it is dependant on prior information. It is like saying the word 'getbigger' is original because prior to getbig it has never been uttered before, but it is simply a modification of the word 'getbig' using a grammatical principle to change the word 'getbig' from a noun to a verb. It's so called originality was dependant on other previously discovered principles.
All your propositions are absurd, the suggestion that gravity didn't exist until Newton assigned a value to it is the most imbecilic thing I have ever heard. Gravities existence is independant of anybody knowing about it. Even if gravity was never discovered it would continue to exist. I think part of your problem is you incorrectly assess reality. When you say 'think of what else is out there that doesn't exist, that is waiting for an original thought to give it life.'. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, no amount of thoughts can make it exist.
The discoveries of say something like gravity isn't due to original thinking. Human beings would have always understood that it exists, as the consistency of which it could be observed would have been undeniable. All that Newton did, using the collective knowledge that had been accumulated until that point in time, was find a way to articulate what it was and how it worked. This wasn't because he was an original thinker, most of the knowledge needed to explain the law was thanks to other great thinkers before him. He simply collaborated that knowledge, used his intellect to expand upon it and utilised scientific principles to explain his discovery.
You are deluded if you believe your thinking is independant of everyone elses. You are a product of the same environment every human being is.
Your acquired body of knowledge and opinions is a due to a web of interdependence. From the time you were born you have been taught ideas that you have modified to make your own. Just as the top floor of a skyscraper couldn't exist without the foundations below it, your thinking, your ideas couldn't exist without the historical foundations of collective knowledge and wisdom that came before it.
I think you misunderstand how great minds from the past developed their original ideas, they first learned the way everyone else does and then they added to that. Their genius didn't come from making a decision to think original thoughts. Their knowledge and wisdom was the accumulation of learning from countless great thinkers before them. Just as Hawkings Discoveries couldn't have happened without Einsteins discoveries that couldn't have happened without Galileo's discoveries and so forth.
I actually think you are seriously deluded, like seriously psychiatrically ill. This absurd notion that others haven't shaped your worldview is the height of arrogance and indication of an inability to assess reality. It is obvious at the very least you are deeply narcisstic, having a deep need to believe you are some type of original thinker and your learning is from some magical source and not from where everyone else gets it, the world around them. Marilyn Manson is original, it doesn't stop him from being a fucking douchebag. Marilyn had the original thought to be the first man to get breast implants (so much for originality). Originality certainly does not equal intelligence. And your posts have descended into common insults, probably the lowest and most unoriginal form of wit known to man. You don't even attempt to explain your strange ideas, you just simply ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. HOW ORIGINAL.
This is why I compared you to Falcon when I read your original word salad post. Don't just take my opinion for it then, go run some of your ideas by the local psychiatrists, and see what they say. Tell the psychiatrist what you have said here, tell them that their life is a movie, that each planet or star in their universe represents an event they either have or have not visited yet. Tell them you believe you don't think anyone can say anything is 'fact'. That there is no 'time'. That the past the present and the future have already happened and are happening now. Get back to me and let me know how that goes for you.
Just because you claim to derive your knowledge from a journey of self discovery, doesn't mean you will come to any correct conclusions. A journey of self discovery is only necessary when you have exhausted the wisdom of others, to take such a journey without the appropriate foundation is like trying to teach yourself algebra without first being taught Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication & Division. For the uninitiated, a journey of self discovery could be the long way around to discovering oneself, it may even prevent you from doing so.
“The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men—but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite—that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.” - Mark Twain
-
Nice rejoinder, and this sledgehammer does obliterate the flea, but a swat of the palm would have done as well.
Once again, the same accusation repeated again and again, perhaps if you had of read my initial response to your unoriginal assertions, you might have stopped repeating yourself looking like a complete tool. I will re-post again, I doubt you will read it though, as it is quite long and requires the attention span of a functioning adult. But here goes anyway.
The irony is I am being asked to demonstrate original thinking by someone who is yet to demonstrate their ability to do so. I would be interested to learn whose opinions you think I am repeating. Rather than pointing out others perceived deficiencies, why don't you try explaining what you mean. Offer a convincing argument as to why I lack original thought. Hell, even a simple demonstration of original thinking would be a good start. Original thinking only has value if it is superior to current thinking. I could create an original sentence like the following "are giants gathering nodules for supercilious modifications". Sure it's original alright, but it's just word salad, it doesn't mean anything. I think your desire for wanting to be an original thinker has clouded your assessment of what that actually means, and the path to achieving such a goal. Original thinking does not equal intelligent or meaningful thinking.
And if we look at thoughts in terms of their link to the uniqueness of each moment, then all thoughts are original, as they will never occur again, the context they occurred in is unique and by definition unrepeatable. If we look at original thought in more practical terms, there is no such thing as original thought independant of other thoughts.
Also, we were discussing your false assertion that facts don't exist, nothing to do with repeating the opinion of others. 2+2=4 isn't the opinion of someone else. It is mathematical fact. . In theory, there is no such thing as an original thought, as it is dependant on a chain of thinking and ideas. It may be considered an extension or adaptation of a train of thought, but it is not original as it is dependant on prior information. It is like saying the word 'getbigger' is original because prior to getbig it has never been uttered before, but it is simply a modification of the word 'getbig' using a grammatical principle to change the word 'getbig' from a noun to a verb. It's so called originality was dependant on other previously discovered principles.
All your propositions are absurd, the suggestion that gravity didn't exist until Newton assigned a value to it is the most imbecilic thing I have ever heard. Gravities existence is independant of anybody knowing about it. Even if gravity was never discovered it would continue to exist. I think part of your problem is you incorrectly assess reality. When you say 'think of what else is out there that doesn't exist, that is waiting for an original thought to give it life.'. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, no amount of thoughts can make it exist.
The discoveries of say something like gravity isn't due to original thinking. Human beings would have always understood that it exists, as the consistency of which it could be observed would have been undeniable. All that Newton did, using the collective knowledge that had been accumulated until that point in time, was find a way to articulate what it was and how it worked. This wasn't because he was an original thinker, most of the knowledge needed to explain the law was thanks to other great thinkers before him. He simply collaborated that knowledge, used his intellect to expand upon it and utilised scientific principles to explain his discovery.
You are deluded if you believe your thinking is independant of everyone elses. You are a product of the same environment every human being is.
Your acquired body of knowledge and opinions is a due to a web of interdependence. From the time you were born you have been taught ideas that you have modified to make your own. Just as the top floor of a skyscraper couldn't exist without the foundations below it, your thinking, your ideas couldn't exist without the historical foundations of collective knowledge and wisdom that came before it.
I think you misunderstand how great minds from the past developed their original ideas, they first learned the way everyone else does and then they added to that. Their genius didn't come from making a decision to think original thoughts. Their knowledge and wisdom was the accumulation of learning from countless great thinkers before them. Just as Hawkings Discoveries couldn't have happened without Einsteins discoveries that couldn't have happened without Galileo's discoveries and so forth.
I actually think you are seriously deluded, like seriously psychiatrically ill. This absurd notion that others haven't shaped your worldview is the height of arrogance and indication of an inability to assess reality. It is obvious at the very least you are deeply narcisstic, having a deep need to believe you are some type of original thinker and your learning is from some magical source and not from where everyone else gets it, the world around them. Marilyn Manson is original, it doesn't stop him from being a fucking douchebag. Marilyn had the original thought to be the first man to get breast implants (so much for originality). Originality certainly does not equal intelligence. And your posts have descended into common insults, probably the lowest and most unoriginal form of wit known to man. You don't even attempt to explain your strange ideas, you just simply ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. HOW ORIGINAL.
This is why I compared you to Falcon when I read your original word salad post. Don't just take my opinion for it then, go run some of your ideas by the local psychiatrists, and see what they say. Tell the psychiatrist what you have said here, tell them that their life is a movie, that each planet or star in their universe represents an event they either have or have not visited yet. Tell them you believe you don't think anyone can say anything is 'fact'. That there is no 'time'. That the past the present and the future have already happened and are happening now. Get back to me and let me know how that goes for you.
Just because you claim to derive your knowledge from a journey of self discovery, doesn't mean you will come to any correct conclusions. A journey of self discovery is only necessary when you have exhausted the wisdom of others, to take such a journey without the appropriate foundation is like trying to teach yourself algebra without first being taught Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication & Division. For the uninitiated, a journey of self discovery could be the long way around to discovering oneself, it may even prevent you from doing so.
“The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men—but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite—that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.” - Mark Twain
-
I do find understanding what time is quite difficult and challenging, and I think I am far from alone in that.
You are not. It's the same thing as explaining a fourth dimension. I can talk to you about it theoretically; I can even show you the three-dimensional shadows a four-dimensional object would cast, but you still cannot visualize an object in four dimensions. Time is even more difficult because it is (at least, to us) unidirectional, unlike the regular dimensions we're used to.
Until about ten or fifteen years ago, the conventional wisdom among all physicists was that time "started" with the Big Bang. Time, it was held, was only definable in terms of the relationships of events in the universe to each other, and so before the universe existed, there could be no time. This was also Hawking's position.
Again, I will repeat: time is a fundamental property of the Universe and temporal causality is meaningless when no partial ordering for a set of events can be defined; this is not in dispute and no physicist debates that fact. If you can find a physicist who explicitly disagrees with these statements then I'll be more than happy to eat the crow I'll have coming to me.
As a result of ongoing efforts going back to Einstein to create a unified field theory, string theory (along with supergravity) came to be a leading candidate to resolve the incompatibilities between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. A successor to string theory, originally proposed by Edward Witten, is M-theory. And a cosmological model of the origin of the universe within M-theory conceives of the following: There is a "bulk universe" in which perhaps an infinite number of n-dimensional "branes" exist (the bulk universe itself being of n+1 dimensions). Each of these branes can be thought of as "floating" in the bulk universe. Occasionally, two branes will collide, causing a Big Bang type event. The Big Bang that created our universe is one such event.
Right, but it's unclear what "time" means in that bulk universe.
Now, if you want to argue that "bulk universe time" is different from time in our universe, be my guest. But, either way, there is a sense in which time extended before the Big Bang. Call it something else if you want, but that would be arbitrary, it seems to me.
No. There's no sense in which time as we understand the concept extended before the Big Bang. What evidence do you have that this bulk universe has any concept of time? I submit that you have none. What evidence do you have that this bulk universe even needs a concept like time? Again, I submit that you have none.
Alan Guth, the originator of the theory of cosmological inflation, is currently working on inflationary models within the bulk universe construct (see Wikipedia article on Guth).
I think you are slightly confused about inflationary theory, and what Guth agrues. The simple fact is that our current understanding suggests that finitely long ago, there was a complete breakdown of general relativity. Nothing that Guth (or Witten, for that matter) say changes that. Guth's inflationary theory addresses the locally-Euclidean nature of the Universe and explains some observations (including the uniform cosmic background radiation) that were viewed as (at best) unexplained anomalies.
Let's assume, for a second, that m-theory is correct and that the Big Bang was the result of two branes colliding. You assert that this collision happened "before" the Big Bang - you extrapolate temporal relations based on the current Universe and extend them to have meaning beyond the Universe in which those relations have meaning.
A variant of the bulk universe construct is the "multiverse", in which big bangs are also creating universes all the time. Lee Smolin has developed a kind of Darwinian theory of "survival" of the many universes created by big bangs in the multiverse. See his "Life of the Cosmos".
None of which addresses the concept of time outside of the context of the Universe. That would be like discussing the life and times of Michael Corleone if "The Godfather" had never been made.
Leonard Susskind discusses the same ideas in "The Black Hole War".
I haven't read the book, but I added it on my Amazon list.
I don't have a reference for Glashow, since my information on him is based on a conversation he and I had after I attended a panel discussion in which he participated, but perhaps my mention of Edward Witten will make up for that.
I'm actually quite impressed that you've met Sheldon Glashow, especially in the context of a panel discussion. Can I ask if you have any training in theoretical physics, or if it's just a subject you enjoy?
All of the above physicists are now or have been working on the above concepts, which involve events postulated to happen before the Big Bang.
No. No. Please stop. Just listen: NO THEORETICAL PHYSICIST WILL EVER USE THE TERM BEFORE IN THE WAY YOU ARE USING IT HERE. THE TERM IS MEANINGLESS.
-
overrated compared to what baseline?
compared to the size and age of a simple supernova.
for example.or a galaxy.
we live for 80years(bbuilders do it in 40)and then that its,we become dirt under the ground.
meanwhile things like supernovas are responsible that there even is an earth.
if theres a god hes not ust hthe pepeteer of eartly strings,the guy is more skilled,he runs the whole universe,maybe that how church pedofilia goes under his radar.who knows what else race he haas created somewhere else.
or maybe we are ust ta trial species from some aliens,they making a truman show with us.
pointing fingers at us"lol,bigbang,when theyre just a computer programme" "lol,religion,we we programmed them to be recepive to that"
-
Nice rejoinder, and this sledgehammer does obliterate the flea, but a swat of the palm would have done as well.
odd. with this post you manifested your own destiny.
see avxo's 'rejoinder' to your post above.
fuck what a clown you are. do you and A-Fool share the same clown costume?
-
I think the discussion ended because the OP demanded that those who believe in G-d provide proof for His existence according to the scientific method. That is not possible. Seeing the universe as the creation of a transcendent intelligence gives purpose and meaning to life for many people. For them, the existence of the universe is sufficient proof that G-d exists. When these people have their doubts about their faith (as anyone does), they feel the doubt emotionally - as a deep void broadening. They don't experience it as an insight that some argument for the existence of G-d is wrong.
Atheists view the world entirely differently, and tend to think that nothing that cannot be established by science has meaning or reality. (They could of course be right.)
It is hard to see how any argument could possibly bridge that kind of gap.
Given that, all you had in this thread were the two opposing camps either shouting past each other, or preaching to the choir. And that gets old real quick.
I think a part of the issue is, atheists see God believers as naive or gullible. If they are willing to suspend critical thought for a comforting illusion, then it is hard to take such people seriously. The God so many choose to believe in and also loves them unconditionally, promises eternal life and a future utopia and that seems a remarkable coincidence. What if the force that created the universe was indifferent to human beings and built in evil as part of his creation. Why is it beliefs around GOD always coincides with what a human being would want? (sins removed, to be forgiven, heaven, to be loved, personal requests granted via prayer etc) It seems GOD is more a function of an individuals EGO, as GOD just so happens to be whatever he wants them to be. A striking coincidence indeed. Atheists see people who believe on GOD the same way a parent sees a child with an imaginary friend. Fortunately the parent knows the child will grow out of such behavior, a luxury not afforded to atheists.
What is wrong with accepting the cold hard realities of life, and through the deepening of this realization developing compassion for others. What if belief in God was just another psychological defense mechanism that prevented you from growing full as a human being. Isn't it just another form of escapism, another way to delay the inevitable. This is why I can't relate to God believers, it's as if they have found a way to deliberately avoid or delay the suffering that life entails, so rather than being able to comfort others who suffer, they lack the relevant frame of reference to do so. By using GOD as a defense mechanism they deprive themselves of the full experience life entails and leaves them unable to help others when they suffer similar fates (other than to teach them the same defensive mechanisms they have learned)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYKY7-Jvv5j-__D5s_dZXUWcSRZRN7gqMiijbwRrk4Mhq2yHZRlA)
-
this aptly captures the intelligence displayed by gonuclear and A-Fool in this thread
well done gentlemen. please keep enlightening us all with your knowledge. lol
-
Science > than the collected stories of the Ancient Goat Herders
-
I do find understanding what time is quite difficult and challenging, and I think I am far from alone in that.
Until about ten or fifteen years ago, the conventional wisdom among all physicists was that time "started" with the Big Bang. Time, it was held, was only definable in terms of the relationships of events in the universe to each other, and so before the universe existed, there could be no time. This was also Hawking's position.
As a result of ongoing efforts going back to Einstein to create a unified field theory, string theory (along with supergravity) came to be a leading candidate to resolve the incompatibilities between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. A successor to string theory, originally proposed by Edward Witten, is M-theory. And a cosmological model of the origin of the universe within M-theory conceives of the following: There is a "bulk universe" in which perhaps an infinite number of n-dimensional "branes" exist (the bulk universe itself being of n+1 dimensions). Each of these branes can be thought of as "floating" in the bulk universe. Occasionally, two branes will collide, causing a Big Bang type event. The Big Bang that created our universe is one such event.
Now, if you want to argue that "bulk universe time" is different from time in our universe, be my guest. But, either way, there is a sense in which time extended before the Big Bang. Call it something else if you want, but that would be arbitrary, it seems to me.
Alan Guth, the originator of the theory of cosmological inflation, is currently working on inflationary models within the bulk universe construct (see Wikipedia article on Guth).
A variant of the bulk universe construct is the "multiverse", in which big bangs are also creating universes all the time. Lee Smolin has developed a kind of Darwinian theory of "survival" of the many universes created by big bangs in the multiverse. See his "Life of the Cosmos".
Leonard Susskind discusses the same ideas in "The Black Hole War".
I don't have a reference for Glashow, since my information on him is based on a conversation he and I had after I attended a panel discussion in which he participated, but perhaps my mention of Edward Witten will make up for that.
All of the above physicists are now or have been working on the above concepts, which involve events postulated to happen before the Big Bang.
Ok so theoretical physics, string theory is meh and has been, loop quantum gravity was suskinds idea and much more palatable. Actually infinites cannot exist either as they require a point with which to measure, making it impossible.
Theoretical physics have all kinds of shit going on, none of it proven beyond some fancy math that may be us rubbing our own dickheads.
-
Ok so theoretical physics, string theory is meh and has been, loop quantum gravity was suskinds idea and much more palatable. Actually infinites cannot exist either as they require a point with which to measure, making it impossible.
Theoretical physics have all kinds of shit going on, none of it proven beyond some fancy math that may be us rubbing our own dickheads.
Just remember the physics that drives your car and flys you across the world was all theory at one time.
-
I believe more in the ancient aliens theory then I do about the classical bible.
If there is a higher power, they are aliens, and they are laughing at they're little ant farm called earth.
It is impossible that we are the only life in the universe. Odds are that there are various cycles going on all around space. Some planets could still be in the dinasour age, while others are way more advanced then we can fathom.
Life is constant. Everything happens in cycles.
-
why let so many children get raped, murdered, killed, etc? what god allows that?
"God" does not care, like any other human filthy being... ::)
If he created us in HIS image, then thats just what it is.......
-
avxo
As usual, I am impressed by your thoughtful and knowledgable reply. Let me start with your last comment/question first: I happen to have met Glashow at an MIT forum. I was just an attendee (being an MIT student at the time), and I have no training in physics at all, just very interested in it, especially cosmology. The panel discussion part of the conference was lightly attended, which helped me get the opportunity to talk with him briefly afterward.
Where we seem to differ is in a notion of time that includes the Big Bang as an event in a larger stream of events. I know it is hypothetical (to what degree is a matter of opinion) to talk about time this way, but, as I said, over the last ten years, physicists have been doing it a lot. Guth actually believes that such discussions are absolutely consistent with known physics, although he does qualify this slightly.
See his paper on Eternal Inflation (http://cds.cern.ch/record/485381/files/0101507.pdf), and specifically in discussing the beginning of the universe, see pages 11-14, where he refers to our universe as a "pocket universe" that came into being "far" from the beginning, and just naturally talks about events before and after the Big Bang. He even has a diagram with an explicitly labeled time axis that spans the beginnings of multiple pocket universes.
Please let me know how you think I am misunderstanding him.
And the sense in which he is talking about time of course satisfies a partial order. That is the weakest requirement for any theory of time, at least according to McTaggart.
You are not. It's the same thing as explaining a fourth dimension. I can talk to you about it theoretically; I can even show you the three-dimensional shadows a four-dimensional object would cast, but you still cannot visualize an object in four dimensions. Time is even more difficult because it is (at least, to us) unidirectional, unlike the regular dimensions we're used to.
Again, I will repeat: time is a fundamental property of the Universe and temporal causality is meaningless when no partial ordering for a set of events can be defined; this is not in dispute and no physicist debates that fact. If you can find a physicist who explicitly disagrees with these statements then I'll be more than happy to eat the crow I'll have coming to me.
Right, but it's unclear what "time" means in that bulk universe.
No. There's no sense in which time as we understand the concept extended before the Big Bang. What evidence do you have that this bulk universe has any concept of time? I submit that you have none. What evidence do you have that this bulk universe even needs a concept like time? Again, I submit that you have none.
I think you are slightly confused about inflationary theory, and what Guth agrues. The simple fact is that our current understanding suggests that finitely long ago, there was a complete breakdown of general relativity. Nothing that Guth (or Witten, for that matter) say changes that. Guth's inflationary theory addresses the locally-Euclidean nature of the Universe and explains some observations (including the uniform cosmic background radiation) that were viewed as (at best) unexplained anomalies.
Let's assume, for a second, that m-theory is correct and that the Big Bang was the result of two branes colliding. You assert that this collision happened "before" the Big Bang - you extrapolate temporal relations based on the current Universe and extend them to have meaning beyond the Universe in which those relations have meaning.
None of which addresses the concept of time outside of the context of the Universe. That would be like discussing the life and times of Michael Corleone if "The Godfather" had never been made.
I haven't read the book, but I added it on my Amazon list.
I'm actually quite impressed that you've met Sheldon Glashow, especially in the context of a panel discussion. Can I ask if you have any training in theoretical physics, or if it's just a subject you enjoy?
No. No. Please stop. Just listen: NO THEORETICAL PHYSICIST WILL EVER USE THE TERM BEFORE IN THE WAY YOU ARE USING IT HERE. THE TERM IS MEANINGLESS.
-
Just remember the physics that drives your car and flys you across the world was all theory at one time.
Sure, but remember that string theory has nothing to do with it.
It has no real world experimental success and before ed whitten was a clusterfuck or useless math.
-
Who the hell is God?
-
Who the hell is God?
This from a guy named "Nobody"? ;D You don't believe, don't worry about it. I don't.
Thanks.
-
Who the hell is God?
God is a man of war :)
-
God is a man of war :)
True most wars are fought over religion.
-
True most wars are fought over religion.
No. The majority of wars are fought because some man wants what another man has. They may fight in the name of "God" but the reality of it is they're in it for themselves.
-
No. The majority of wars are fought because some man wants what another man has. They may fight in the name of "God" but the reality of it is they're in it for themselves.
Religion and politics are just the means by which people rationalize their right to take what another man has. On the other hand, if you believe that religions are man made, then you must consider the fact that they are designed to encourage such practices of war as they are reflections of the human character.
-
Religion and politics are just the means by which people rationalize their right to take what another man has. On the other hand, if you believe that religions are man made, then you must consider the fact that they are designed to encourage such practices of war as they are reflections of the human character.
Christ never said to make war. He never asked anyone to kill in His name. I don't have a religion, but instead faith (such as it is). No one is perfect, but from what little I know of His life, He was very close to it.
-
Religion and politics are just the means by which people rationalize their right to take what another man has. On the other hand, if you believe that religions are man made, then you must consider the fact that they are designed to encourage such practices of war as they are reflections of the human character.
Good post.
-
Christ never said to make war. He never asked anyone to kill in His name. I don't have a religion, but instead faith (such as it is). No one is perfect, but from what little I know of His life, He was very close to it.
Kindness, charity and the capacity to love are also elements of the human character. Religion can reflect the more positive aspect of the human character as well.
-
Christ never said to make war. He never asked anyone to kill in His name. I don't have a religion, but instead faith (such as it is). No one is perfect, but from what little I know of His life, He was very close to it.
God is a man of war, the Bible says he is
-
God is a man of war, the Bible says he is
Man (in general but not always) is a war monger. We can and should defend ourselves but I have no desire for my neighbor's wife, home or anything else. If we are to believe the Word, then Christ is not only that Word but the completion of it.
-
"I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will." - Ac 13:22
(http://ubdavid.org/bibleexploration/know-your-bible2/graphics/6_saved-from-a-tall-giant.jpg)
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID8276/images/david-head-goliath.jpg)
-
Man (in general but not always) is a war monger. We can and should defend ourselves but I have no desire for my neighbor's wife, home or anything else. If we are to believe the Word, then Christ is not only that Word but the completion of it.
INDEED
-
"I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will." - Ac 13:22
(http://ubdavid.org/bibleexploration/know-your-bible2/graphics/6_saved-from-a-tall-giant.jpg)
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID8276/images/david-head-goliath.jpg)
David was a Hebrew. I know you Europeans can't help yourselves but quit stealin' our shit.
-
god is the last human who accumulated all the knowledges of past humans and as a result is immortal, eternal.
-
David was a Hebrew. I know you Europeans can't help yourselves but quit stealin' our shit.
you are taking credit where it is not due, THROUGH ABRAHAM EVERY NATION WILL BE BLESSED.
So what have black people contributed to every single nation that has blessed all nation? seriously, some blacks are Hebrews and some Hebrews are Jews and some Hebrews are white, this has blessed all nations.
But you need to answer how black people have blessed the nations according to the Bible,HOW?
-
The high priests of Ethopia may agree with wiggs
they have the stones from mount sinai afterall
-
The high priests of Ethopia may agree with wiggs
they have the stones from mount sinai afterall
The high Priest of Ethiopia is Hebrew, I agree with that but does not mean Wiggs is Hebrew though
-
The high Priest of Ethiopia is Hebrew, I agree with that but does not mean Wiggs is Hebrew though
i see
i think wiggs calls all blacks hebrews
i think that's odd given the tribalism of extreme proportions seen in present day africa
-
No. The majority of wars are fought because some man wants what another man has. They may fight in the name of "God" but the reality of it is they're in it for themselves.
And what if that 'other man' has the same religion? ::)
-
i see
i think wiggs calls all blacks hebrews
i think that's odd given the tribalism of extreme proportions seen in present day africa
Arabs, all nations are Hebrew, Jews and Jordanians are Hebrews, some Italians, some Spanish, Some Greeks, Some African tribes including one third of Ethiopians are Hebrews.
One third of the Planet are Hebrews.
-
Arabs, all nations are Hebrew, Jews and Jordanians are Hebrews, some Italians, some Spanish, Some Greeks, Some African tribes including one third of Ethiopians are Hebrews.
One third of the Planet are Hebrews.
A WIGGS meltdown is on its way...
-
A WIGGS meltdown is on its way...
;D
I hope not, I am just outlining what the term Hebrew means by definition :-\
-
;D
I hope not, I am just outlining what the term Hebrew means by definition :-\
Not saying that one of you is right (in fact I don't care), but he would prob say the same.
So 'religion of peace' becomes 'interpretation of peace', and you might ask yourself "is it (<- the debate) really worth it?"
-
Not saying that one of you is right (in fact I don't care), but he would prob say the same.
So 'religion of peace' becomes 'interpretation of peace', and you might ask yourself "is it (<- the debate) really worth it?"
well I see what you mean but in this case he can not argue because the root word for Hebrew is EBER so all descendants of EBER are considered Hebrew, not up to debate here and that means all Abraham descendants including Jacob which is the JEWS and including Ishmael which means all ARAB nations and including Jordanians because they come from LOT, Abraham's nephew.
PS I KNOW YOU DON'T GIVE 2 SHITS BUT JUST GETTING A HEAD START ON WIGGS :D
-
avxo
As usual, I am impressed by your thoughtful and knowledgable reply. Let me start with your last comment/question first: I happen to have met Glashow at an MIT forum. I was just an attendee (being an MIT student at the time), and I have no training in physics at all, just very interested in it, especially cosmology. The panel discussion part of the conference was lightly attended, which helped me get the opportunity to talk with him briefly afterward.
Quite awesome. I'm sure that talking to a physicist of that caliber is a mind-blowing experience.
Where we seem to differ is in a notion of time that includes the Big Bang as an event in a larger stream of events. I know it is hypothetical (to what degree is a matter of opinion) to talk about time this way, but, as I said, over the last ten years, physicists have been doing it a lot. Guth actually believes that such discussions are absolutely consistent with known physics, although he does qualify this slightly.
Interesting. I will have to read more on this to discuss his particular theories/ideas.
See his paper on Eternal Inflation (http://cds.cern.ch/record/485381/files/0101507.pdf), and specifically in discussing the beginning of the universe, see pages 11-14, where he refers to our universe as a "pocket universe" that came into being "far" from the beginning, and just naturally talks about events before and after the Big Bang. He even has a diagram with an explicitly labeled time axis that spans the beginnings of multiple pocket universes.
I'll pull the paper down on my Kindle and read it when I have a bit of free time. It might be quite interesting. Assuming these sort of "multiverse" or "universe in a bottle" theories are true, I wonder if there has to be a correlation between a time-like property in the "outside" Universe as opposed to the inside.
Going off on a slight tangent, you may want to read "A New Kind of Science" by Steven Wolfram. Be warned: the book has a very very heavy dose of amour-propre and enough self-exultation to make one burst into flames. I don't think that he develops a new kind of science, but nevertheless some of what he writes is very interesting.
One concept that I found to be very interesting is his proposal that our Universe could be (or at least be modeled as) one huge cellular automaton, and that in such a construct, the concept of time, albeit quantized in nature, would be experienced as such by those inside the simulation.
This sort of thing intrigues me, and even Wolfram doesn't develop a new kind of science, and even if the model he proposes can be proven not to be able to model the Universe - one of the fatal flaws is that it cannot simultaneously handle both special relativity and Bell inequality violations) it still makes for some interesting thought experiments.
Please let me know how you think I am misunderstanding him.
I'm sure you aren't, but I'll take a read. It sounds very interesting.
-
Arabs, all nations are Hebrew, Jews and Jordanians are Hebrews, some Italians, some Spanish, Some Greeks, Some African tribes including one third of Ethiopians are Hebrews.
One third of the Planet are Hebrews.
oth's inner parker manifesting itself ;D
-
And what if that 'other man' has the same religion? ::)
You can drop the rolling eyes smiley because it suits neither you (or at least I hope so) nor this discussion. So-called "religion" has nothing to do with what two people who live for themselves versus their "religion" do to others. You knew that and still posted your half-hearted rebuttal in a weak attempt to rebuke my words. Look, I have nothing against you nor do I dislike a good debate but if you wish I can be as childish as any here, including you.
As I said, men will do what they do and label it to be "God's will" when it really is their desire. And that is truth of it.
I am not come to make sport of you for your disbelief, lack of faith or what have you. I am up front in what I hold true but again, if you choose to be sarcastic you will find me either a worthy adversary or I will just leave you to your world.
I think it best I choose the latter. Ask yourself this - Which is easier to make, a friend or an enemy? The latter. It is easier to be a total asshole than it is to work at a friendship. One takes only the effort needed to piss off others while the other takes much more. Both can last a lifetime. I would prefer friendship.
Your choice, sir.
-
oth's inner parker manifesting itself ;D
You're mistaking Parker for Wiggs.
-
Sure, but remember that string theory has nothing to do with it.
It has no real world experimental success and before ed whitten was a clusterfuck or useless math.
They said the same thing about relativity but without it there is no GPS.
-
Quite awesome. I'm sure that talking to a physicist of that caliber is a mind-blowing experience.
Interesting. I will have to read more on this to discuss his particular theories/ideas.
I'll pull the paper down on my Kindle and read it when I have a bit of free time. It might be quite interesting. Assuming these sort of "multiverse" or "universe in a bottle" theories are true, I wonder if there has to be a correlation between a time-like property in the "outside" Universe as opposed to the inside.
Going off on a slight tangent, you may want to read "A New Kind of Science" by Steven Wolfram. Be warned: the book has a very very heavy dose of amour-propre and enough self-exultation to make one burst into flames. I don't think that he develops a new kind of science, but nevertheless some of what he writes is very interesting.
One concept that I found to be very interesting is his proposal that our Universe could be (or at least be modeled as) one huge cellular automaton, and that in such a construct, the concept of time, albeit quantized in nature, would be experienced as such by those inside the simulation.
This sort of thing intrigues me, and even Wolfram doesn't develop a new kind of science, and even if the model he proposes can be proven not to be able to model the Universe - one of the fatal flaws is that it cannot simultaneously handle both special relativity and Bell inequality violations) it still makes for some interesting thought experiments.
I'm sure you aren't, but I'll take a read. It sounds very interesting.
Thanks very much, especially about Wolfram"s book. I remember when it came out now that you mention it, but I had forgotten it. I'll take a look at it.
-
You can drop the rolling eyes smiley because it suits neither you (or at least I hope so) nor this discussion. So-called "religion" has nothing to do with what two people who live for themselves versus their "religion" do to others. You knew that and still posted your half-hearted rebuttal in a weak attempt to rebuke my words. Look, I have nothing against you nor do I dislike a good debate but if you wish I can be as childish as any here, including you.
As I said, men will do what they do and label it to be "God's will" when it really is their desire. And that is truth of it.
I am not come to make sport of you for your disbelief, lack of faith or what have you. I am up front in what I hold true but again, if you choose to be sarcastic you will find me either a worthy adversary or I will just leave you to your world.
I think it best I choose the latter. Ask yourself this - Which is easier to make, a friend or an enemy? The latter. It is easier to be a total asshole than it is to work at a friendship. One takes only the effort needed to piss off others while the other takes much more. Both can last a lifetime. I would prefer friendship.
Your choice, sir.
I'm not implying that the cause of many wars is religion itself, but that someones religion plays an important role whether to attack or not, and yes, there's also a "Gods's will" motivation. So in short, someones interpretation of a religion and his values are the root of the problem, not the religion itself.
I hope you get my point. :)
-
this thread is still clinging on for dear life with all the usual players saying the same things over and over and over and over....great fun!! :D
-
this thread is still clinging on for dear life with all the usual players saying the same things over and over and over and over....great fun!! :D
True, but this applies to both parties.
Really, I try to avoid religious debates as much as possible.
-
True, but this applies to both parties.
Really, I try to avoid religious debates as much as possible.
I've just grown a bit weary of it lately which is why I haven't been participating much.....I'm on vacation from it at the moment. ;)
-
Arabs, all nations are Hebrew, Jews and Jordanians are Hebrews, some Italians, some Spanish, Some Greeks, Some African tribes including one third of Ethiopians are Hebrews.
One third of the Planet are Hebrews.
Don't start. Because if I ripped you up early this year. I'd totally massacre you now. So just give the go and I'll school you. You spewing out bullshit and I'm gonna correct you.
I'll start by saying don't take this personal. Because I'm going to make you look very stupid. You know, you being a "historian" and all. ::)
Instead of trying to fix your gobblely-goo. We're going to start from the beginning with the father of the Israelites Abram or Abraham and what his race was. We'll work our way up to now.
-
Don't start. Because if I ripped you up early this year. I'd totally massacre you now. So just give the go and I'll school you. You spewing out bullshit and I'm gonna correct you.
I'll start by saying don't take this personal. Because I'm going to make you look very stupid. You know, you being a "historian" and all. ::)
Instead of trying to fix your gobblely-goo. We're going to start from the beginning with the father of the Israelites Abram or Abraham and what his race was. We'll work our way up to now.
great argument Wiggs, I did not know any of that, awesome, thanks brother you just taught me a lot in this post, ROTFLMAO
-
great argument Wiggs, I did not know any of that, awesome, thanks brother you just taught me a lot in this post, ROTFLMAO
So I'll take that as a greenlight to go bro. ;D
Prepare for destruction on a Wiggsican scale. You will not recover.
Just remember, I still love you and respect you.
-
So I'll take that as a greenlight to go bro. ;D
Prepare for destruction on a Wiggsican scale. You will not recover.
Just remember, I still love you and respect you.
Incorrect information, Falcon will be around to straighten this stuff out soon.
-
I've just grown a bit weary of it lately which is why I haven't been participating much.....I'm on vacation from it at the moment. ;)
I 'believe' that more believers should follow that way. I'm not saying that they should keep their mouth, but why wasting so much time in endless debates?
-
The God I believe in is an Atheist. He has self esteem issues and stopped believing in himself. ;D
-
We re all animals and only the ones who adapt to threats survive while the others disapear. End of thread. And not just this particular one.
-
We re all animals and only the ones who adapt to threats survive while the others disapear. End of thread. And not just this particular one.
Speak for yourself. If you think human beings are nothing more than animals, you are certainly not alone.
Your constant harping on this reminds me of a story that a teacher I once had shared with me. He told me that he once met a philosopher who lamented the strides of computer technology and artificial intelligence in particular. He complained, "Oh No, this means were are nothing more than machines, organic machines yes, but just machines nonetheless."
The man was obsessed with the idea that humans were "just machines." It never occurred to him to think, "My gosh, I never realized machines could be so wonderful!".
Think about it. Everything depends on how you look at the world and your place in it.
-
Speak for yourself. If you think human beings are nothing more than animals, you are certainly not alone.
Your constant harping on this reminds me of a story that a teacher I once had shared with me. He told me that he once met a philosopher who lamented the strides of computer technology and artificial intelligence in particular. He complained, "Oh No, this means were are nothing more than machines, organic machines yes, but just machines nonetheless."
The man was obsessed with the idea that humans were "just machines." It never occurred to him to think, "My gosh, I never realized machines could be so wonderful!".
Think about it. Everything depends on how you look at the world and your place in it.
Yeah... we are, in a very real sense, organic machines. Like you, I don't find this disturbing. What's the problem? It doesn't take away anything from us as individuals or a species.
-
this thread is still clinging on for dear life with all the usual players saying the same things over and over and over and over....great fun!! :D
It is how you say what you say and whether or not you mean it with all that you are. I simply state what I hold to be true, either by faith or fact.
-
I'm not implying that the cause of many wars is religion itself, but that someones religion plays an important role whether to attack or not, and yes, there's also a "Gods's will" motivation. So in short, someones interpretation of a religion and his values are the root of the problem, not the religion itself.
I hope you get my point. :)
Yes, thank you sir!
-
So I'll take that as a greenlight to go bro. ;D
Prepare for destruction on a Wiggsican scale. You will not recover.
Just remember, I still love you and respect you.
oh hell ya bro, I still respect you, you stick to your guns and don't back down, although in this case it is foolish :D
OK here is a few question, Are Arabs Hebrew?
Are Arabs half black?
and according to you Descendants of Abraham are black and according to the Bible through Abraham s lineage all nations are blessed; So here is my question what have black people done that has blessed all nations?
Start with this before I unleash an owning of V BOARD PROPORTION. ;)
-
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/not-this-shit-again-jesus.jpg)
-
I 'believe' that more believers should follow that way. I'm not saying that they should keep their mouth, but why wasting so much time in endless debates?
Sure, I get what you're saying. Often times these threads ask something "religious", but the point of the thread isn't to find a "religious answer". It's simply to state in general why religion is incorrect, crazy, nonsensical, etc.....Sometimes it's a healthy debate, but the most times it's not. Often times it's not discussion that is being sought....it's just a platform that is desired.
When I speak of Jesus Christ my goal is always simple. Share the gospel. Share how Christ has changed my life. Represent Christ in all that I do and be that salt and light for the world. What I always pray for is that someone will read my words (which is really the words of others before me) or the words of another believer and then contact me/them privately to talk more about it. Not that I don't mind putting everything out their publically, but within the "free for all" of the thread voices get lost, purpose gets murky and threads deviate dramatically.
It is how you say what you say and whether or not you mean it with all that you are. I simply state what I hold to be true, either by faith or fact.
What Scott says here is correct and I agree.
Most often I will defend my faith as best I'm able to without reservation in a thread. Still, when I've done that repeatedly and the same players keep regurgitating the same comments despite my attempts to present myself with honesty and humility and even redirecting/correcting their incorrect ideas about my faith, Christ, Christians, etc.....then it's time to step away for a bit or stop altogether with that particular audience.
I do persist for the sake of others that may be reading the thread and aren't posting though....for some these threads may be the only exposure to "religion" they get in their day to day.
-
Darren, better stick to being a hard bastard.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/s403x403/1535653_10201393645109294_1048627524_n.jpg)
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/s403x403/1535653_10201393645109294_1048627524_n.jpg)
Hmmmm... Your parents created a "son" did they not? You have yet to shine, though. Grow up. Your lack of faith doesn't harm me at all and your childish behavior only makes you seem a buffoon.
I have faith not in a religion nor in man. I've seen too much evil done in the "name" of "God" when in truth it's done in the greed of men. I've also seen stupid done by men like yourself because they hate what they do not possess. Simple, genuine, faith.
I could care less about your "salvation". I've said before that I am not come to make you wear shoes. But...If you are going to be a rude, childish dumbass I will all too gladly point it out.
Be well. Or continue to be retarded in your feeble attempts to belittle the Christ and that which He stands for.
-
(http://dailyatheistquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/43267_original.jpg)
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-faith-means-not-wanting-to-know-what-is-true-friedrich-nietzsche-255974.jpg)
-
(http://dailyatheistquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/43267_original.jpg)
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-faith-means-not-wanting-to-know-what-is-true-friedrich-nietzsche-255974.jpg)
*SNICKER* ;D TEE HEE ;D