Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
June 24, 2019, 05:25:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dawkins vs creationist  (Read 20938 times)
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5368


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #200 on: March 22, 2012, 08:30:59 PM »

you really are quite the douchebag, you know that right ? consider yourself lucky that i  continue this conversion despite your lack of ability to communicate with people in a respectable manner.

Alas, I consider myself quite unlucky, what with having to read the piles of manure you post (and which you, presumably, think are intelligent). Of course, I could let it go and simply ignore you. But that has been the cause of many backwards steps in our history, and I, for one, don't want to allow your kind of mysticism to claim the mantle of science.

science attains probabilities dealing with mechanical processes. certain truth is impossible, and so is knowledge of the metaphysical.

If by metaphysical you are referring to something that transcends the physical and/or the laws of nature" then I will state simply: the metaphysical and the supernatural are the realm of mystics and not the realm of logic and they don't interest me. The physical and the natural interest me.


you dont know anything. you can say something seems to be a certain way, but you can never prove it. you can only increase the strength of your conviction over time through repeated experience of the same phenomena. whether or not that phenomena will always occur the way you experience it to occur is completely unknown to you.

Of course - science is empirical and everything in science is falsifiable. Of course, the more we observe and understand certain things or events, the more certain we are about certain aspects of those things or events. You say that as if it's a bad thing...


yes, energy , material, existence itself is a complete mystery.

That depends. You consider their origin to be a mystery worth solving, and use that to argue that either (a) science, is somehow, defective, for not having deciphered things already; or (b) that science and reason aren't the exclusive tools by which we acquire knowledge about our surroundings, but part of a larger toolset, one which includes mysticism and faith.


yes i do strongly encourage you to take some basic philosophy. an intro to modern philosophy class would  be perfect. that will cover thetime period when men of reason realized that the true nature of the universe was outside of our grasp and that nothing could ever be proven, so they stopped focusing on the metaphysical and began studying the objects around them. ah, the birth of science. founded on acceptance of the impossibility of knowledge.

It's quite amazing how you can twist reality into knots like that. The birth of science wasn't founded on the "acceptance of the impossibility of knowledge", but rather on the acceptance that knowledge is possible, the Universe is rational and can be understood, and that natural truths are more important than vaticinations about the supernatural.


if you feel like discussing an issue with someone will not lead to progress, then simply dont discuss the issue with them. you dont have to act like an arrogant piece of shit just because somebody isnt accepting your logic. even if your logic is sound.

 

on bacteria, you originally dismissed skepticism about the ability of bacteria to form spontaneously by asserting that the process had been observed in a laboratory.  there is a difference between lifeless material evolving into a life form and an already living organism evolving into a different living organism.  which one are you claiming has been observed ?

As I explained clearly, I was refuting the assertion from the blob you copy-pasted about the evolution of bacteria. Specifically, the bit that said: "The complexity of bacteria is not alone in arguing against their evolution."


on the statistic/probabilities. yes i completely understand. i was agreeing with you in my post. i guess you didnt understant that i was in agreement and took my rewording of your assertion to be some kind of attempt at skewing it into something different.

No, you really aren't in agreement if you believe the bits you copy-pasted about the probability of certain optical isomers combining, or that whole thing about flipping a coin 400 times and getting head 400 times in a row. In fact, your other statements, such as this gem: "although something might be extremely improbable, if you increase the chances to the point where it becomes probable then its likely to occur..  yes, of course. " about the issue lead me to believe you have no idea about statistics at all.


Quote from: tbombz
how does something lifeless gain intelligence and start directing other lifeless particles to start acting ?

This question is so horrible that it's almost hard to believe it's meant seriously... You jump from lifeless to intelligence to direction/cooperation. It's like your brain is a pool of liquid from which words emerge, disconnected and devoid of any meaning, purely at random, and that you just string together on the off-chance that the final concatenation of those random bits will make sense.


Quote from: tbombz
how do single celled bacteria sense things outside their bodies and coordinate/communicate with other bacteria ?

Different "sense" modalities and different communication mechanisms develop - evolution and natural selection explain this sort of phenomenon fairly well. Hell, we see all sorts of evidence


Quote from: tbombz
are you actually alive? do you even actually exist? if the world is purely physical like most modern atheists assert then you actually dont exist to any extent. there is no such thing as you. and it is this position that is currently prevailing in the scientific community.

More nonsense floating to the surface. So basically, unless something supernatural exists, this natural existence in meaningless and devoid of essence. Now your true colors are showing tbombz. Remember for chastising me for treating you like "a non-thinking, science-denying, bible believing, 3000 year old earth preaching, uneducated individual"? Statements like that are why I do.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9924


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #201 on: March 23, 2012, 09:29:25 AM »

Brutal multiple tbombz meltdowns in this topic.. The ownage is legendary..

Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #202 on: March 23, 2012, 10:14:11 AM »


If by metaphysical you are referring to something that transcends the physical and/or the laws of nature" then I will state simply: the metaphysical and the supernatural are the realm of mystics and not the realm of logic and they don't interest me. The physical and the natural interest me.

by metaphysical i mean the foundation of existence.


Of course - science is empirical and everything in science is falsifiable. Of course, the more we observe and understand certain things or events, the more certain we are about certain aspects of those things or events. You say that as if it's a bad thing...


That depends. You consider their origin to be a mystery worth solving, and use that to argue that either (a) science, is somehow, defective, for not having deciphered things already; or (b) that science and reason aren't the exclusive tools by which we acquire knowledge about our surroundings, but part of a larger toolset, one which includes mysticism and faith.

i love science. i thinks its amazing. its not defective. never claimed it was. simply pointing out its limitations. this discussion is about the origin of the universe, science is incapable of making any assertions on the subject. which means man is incapable of making assertions on the subject, as man is limited to science.


It's quite amazing how you can twist reality into knots like that. The birth of science wasn't founded on the "acceptance of the impossibility of knowledge", but rather on the acceptance that knowledge is possible, the Universe is rational and can be understood, and that natural truths are more important than vaticinations about the supernatural.

this is where you do really need to take a philosophical history class. it wasnt untill philosophers, specifically an atheist philosopher named david hume, proved that knowledge was impossible that men of reason were able to focus on science and not be bothered by men of faith.

the universe is rational ? PROVE IT   Wink   (quantum mechanics certainly seems to indicate the opposite  Cheesy )



 

As I explained clearly, I was refuting the assertion from the blob you copy-pasted about the evolution of bacteria. Specifically, the bit that said: "The complexity of bacteria is not alone in arguing against their evolution."

and your still dodging the question.  you leave your assertion open for interpretation. theres a difference between a lifeform mutating and a lifeless material suddenly gaining intelligence.


No, you really aren't in agreement if you believe the bits you copy-pasted about the probability of certain optical isomers combining, or that whole thing about flipping a coin 400 times and getting head 400 times in a row. In fact, your other statements, such as this gem: "although something might be extremely improbable, if you increase the chances to the point where it becomes probable then its likely to occur..  yes, of course. " about the issue lead me to believe you have no idea about statistics at all.

you just didnt understand the way i was explaining it.  something is improbable because it would take many many chances for it to happen. if you increase the number of chances, the improbable becomes likely. 


This question is so horrible that it's almost hard to believe it's meant seriously... You jump from lifeless to intelligence to direction/cooperation. It's like your brain is a pool of liquid from which words emerge, disconnected and devoid of any meaning, purely at random, and that you just string together on the off-chance that the final concatenation of those random bits will make sense.

the question is extremely valid. how does something lifeless suddenly gain intelligence and start thinking? at what point does the rock gain conciousness?

Different "sense" modalities and different communication mechanisms develop - evolution and natural selection explain this sort of phenomenon fairly well. Hell, we see all sorts of evidence

a bacteria, one cell, no nervous system, no sensory organs, no brain, no nucleus, no nothing but an exterior cell wall, some dna, and maybe some flagella..   but yet it can sense thing outside its walls. how ? it can communicate and cooperate with other bacteria. how ? it thinks and has emotional responses. how ?  no, you can not give a bullshit answer like you just tried to. whats the physiological cause and effect behind these processes ?  Wink


More nonsense floating to the surface. So basically, unless something supernatural exists, this natural existence in meaningless and devoid of essence. Now your true colors are showing tbombz. Remember for chastising me for treating you like "a non-thinking, science-denying, bible believing, 3000 year old earth preaching, uneducated individual"? Statements like that are why I do.

i was simply relaying the prevailing opinion in the scientific community. free will doesnt exist, there is nothing more than a brain, there is nothing more than domino's knocking into each other, there is no thinking being, there is no being, there is only blobs of material responding to sensory information in a way that allows it to create other blobs of material. if you dont understand the implications of your ideology i suggest you withhold from preaching it. 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5368


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #203 on: March 23, 2012, 12:10:07 PM »

I'm not even going to bother answering you anymore tbombz. It's obvious you don't understand and don't want to understand. You just keep repeating same nonsense over and over again.
Report to moderator   Logged
deceiver
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2671


onetimehard appreciation team


« Reply #204 on: March 23, 2012, 12:41:04 PM »

I sometimes wonder how life would be if I was as slow and stubborn as tbombz. He has no education whatsoever, most likely works as a mechanic or something like that (which is nothing bad at all) and in free time discusses "philosophical" and "methaphysical" questions on getbig. I for one love math - it makes idiots like him become utterly transparent Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
lovemonkey
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7750


Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate


« Reply #205 on: March 23, 2012, 12:45:00 PM »

I sometimes wonder how life would be if I was as slow and stubborn as tbombz. He has no education whatsoever, most likely works as a mechanic or something like that (which is nothing bad at all) and in free time discusses "philosophical" and "methaphysical" questions on getbig. I for one love math - it makes idiots like him become utterly transparent Cheesy

Oh yeah?

Prove that the equation a^n+b^n=c^n doesn't have any solutions for n>2   Z.

Should be child's play for a getbigger.
Report to moderator   Logged

from incomplete data
deceiver
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2671


onetimehard appreciation team


« Reply #206 on: March 23, 2012, 12:52:23 PM »

Oh yeah?

Prove that the equation a^n+b^n=c^n doesn't have any solutions for n>2   Z.

Should be child's play for a getbigger.

It's arleady proven by Wiles and there are maybe 20 people on earth who can understand it completely.

Let m,n be such positive natural numbers that set {1,2,...,n} has exactly m prime numbers. Prove that any subset A of that set of size m+1 has element that divides multiplication of the rest of elements of A.

Your turn.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #207 on: March 23, 2012, 01:47:49 PM »

and i win by default, as my competitor bows out due to an inability to address the fundamental issues..

at what point does the rock start thinking , and whats the cause of it ?   Grin   

LOL

i really do get quite amazed by how foolish intelligent people can be.  Shocked
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #208 on: March 23, 2012, 01:50:28 PM »

i can just imagine avxo slamming his fist into his computer desk every time he has to read questions from me about the cause of intelligence and the inability of science to speak on issues of metaphysics.

BUT, BUT, BUT....   SCIENCE IS SUPREME!!!!!   WE ALREADY EXPLAINED EVERYTHING !! DARWIN MADE GOD ABSOLUTE !!!! THE BIG BANG !!! THE BIG BANG FOR FUCKS SAKE !!! CAN ANYONE HEAR ME??? EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG !!!!!!!!   


 Grin   Grin   Grin   Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
dr.chimps
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 28621


Chimpus ergo sum


« Reply #209 on: March 23, 2012, 01:58:37 PM »

i can just imagine avxo slamming his fist into his computer desk every time he has to read questions from me about the cause of intelligence and the inability of science to speak on issues of metaphysics.

BUT, BUT, BUT....   SCIENCE IS SUPREME!!!!!   WE ALREADY EXPLAINED EVERYTHING !! DARWIN MADE GOD ABSOLUTE !!!! THE BIG BANG !!! THE BIG BANG FOR FUCKS SAKE !!! CAN ANYONE HEAR ME??? EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG !!!!!!!!   


 Grin   Grin   Grin   Grin
Let me know when you get any of these 'thoughts' broadcast in any other format than a BBing website. I'd also be interested to hear the criticisms of your editing peers. Thanks much.   
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #210 on: March 23, 2012, 02:03:54 PM »

Let me know when you get any of these 'thoughts' broadcast in any other format than a BBing website. I'd also be interested to hear the criticisms of your editing peers. Thanks much.   
these thoughts are as old as time, brosephine. didnt originate with me, im just passing em on to the new generation.. this new generation that has been estranged from the truths of the past because of the predominace of ideas about the future...   i wasnt bluffing when i kept refering avxo to philosophical history.. its all there..  these ideas about causality and the formation of intelligence.. i may have done a bit of revamping to them, im not self depreicating enough to say i havent added something to them to make them a bit stronger and more understandable in the light of moder science, but they go back to the greatest minds to have ever lived. socrates, descartes, berkeley, hume..
Report to moderator   Logged
King Shizzo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 29202


Ron crowned me King because I always deliver.


« Reply #211 on: March 23, 2012, 02:45:38 PM »

It's arleady proven by Wiles and there are maybe 20 people on earth who can understand it completely.

Let m,n be such positive natural numbers that set {1,2,...,n} has exactly m prime numbers. Prove that any subset A of that set of size m+1 has element that divides multiplication of the rest of elements of A.

Your turn.
Do I really have to say it?  Outed.
Report to moderator   Logged
dr.chimps
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 28621


Chimpus ergo sum


« Reply #212 on: March 23, 2012, 03:14:33 PM »

these thoughts are as old as time, brosephine. didnt originate with me, im just passing em on to the new generation.. this new generation that has been estranged from the truths of the past because of the predominace of ideas about the future...   i wasnt bluffing when i kept refering avxo to philosophical history.. its all there..  these ideas about causality and the formation of intelligence.. i may have done a bit of revamping to them, im not self depreicating enough to say i havent added something to them to make them a bit stronger and more understandable in the light of moder science, but they go back to the greatest minds to have ever lived. socrates, descartes, berkeley, hume..
Hmm. Not bad.  6.5 on the Falcon scale.    Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
lovemonkey
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7750


Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate


« Reply #213 on: March 24, 2012, 05:02:18 AM »

It's arleady proven by Wiles and there are maybe 20 people on earth who can understand it completely.

Let m,n be such positive natural numbers that set {1,2,...,n} has exactly m prime numbers. Prove that any subset A of that set of size m+1 has element that divides multiplication of the rest of elements of A.

Your turn.

lol man I know I was just being a dick. I just finished reading Fermat's Riddle that explained much of the process behind proving the theorem. Fascinating story.
Report to moderator   Logged

from incomplete data
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9778


« Reply #214 on: March 24, 2012, 03:31:29 PM »

and i win by default, as my competitor bows out due to an inability to address the fundamental issues..

at what point does the rock start thinking , and whats the cause of it ?   Grin   

LOL

i really do get quite amazed by how foolish intelligent people can be.  Shocked

state the fundamental issues clear and succinctly for me.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #215 on: March 24, 2012, 03:40:22 PM »

state the fundamental issues clear and succinctly for me.

1) science, and thus man,  can never speak on the ultimate origin and cause of things.  because of this, no assertions about the existence or nonexistence of a deity can ever be made with any degree of certainty.

that would be THE fundamental issue


Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9778


« Reply #216 on: March 24, 2012, 05:16:07 PM »

1) science, and thus man,  can never speak on the ultimate origin and cause of things.  because of this, no assertions about the existence or nonexistence of a deity can ever be made with any degree of certainty.

that would be THE fundamental issue




Not true, what deity? the christian deity? because his work speaks volumes about him, its called indirect evidence.

also, where is the assumption that man cannot know of origin? where did you get this from?
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #217 on: March 25, 2012, 09:11:58 PM »

Not true, what deity? the christian deity? because his work speaks volumes about him, its called indirect evidence.

also, where is the assumption that man cannot know of origin? where did you get this from?

massive face palm right now...

give me an example of an explanation of origin and cause ..   and i will ask a question about causation of that explanation..

get it now ?   
Report to moderator   Logged
no one
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11990

have i hurt your feelings?


« Reply #218 on: March 25, 2012, 09:59:25 PM »

everyone cares.

are you actually alive? do you even actually exist? if the world is purely physical like most modern atheists assert then you actually dont exist to any extent. there is no such thing as you. and it is this position that is currently prevailing in the scientific community.


do you die ? is it even possible for you to die ? what do you mean by death ? death of the body ? loss of all memory ? an inability to continue experiencing and thinking ? could you continue thinking without a body ? do you remain in your memories once your dead?





none of what you ponder matters. one day your life as you know it will cease to exist. that is all that matters. anything else is just speculation.
Report to moderator   Logged

b
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9778


« Reply #219 on: March 26, 2012, 03:52:19 AM »

1) science, and thus man,  can never speak on the ultimate origin and cause of things.  because of this, no assertions about the existence or nonexistence of a deity can ever be made with any degree of certainty.

that would be THE fundamental issue




i see no self evident truths there, why do you make the assumption that man can make no assertion about "ultimate origins", by stating we can make no assertions you are violating your rule. The statement is self-defeating, how can you state that no assertions can be made, then state man can never speak on the origin and cause of things, thats an assertion, one without evidence, nor argued reasonably. You are basically saying we can't know (which you haven't convinced me of) and thus should give up?

why can man never know origins, what if there is no origin? philosophically something would exist which it's essence is to exist. That is if something exists, it always did since, nothing can create nothing and something does exist. Oh wait thats a stupid aquinas argument, virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Also, a recent discovery showed that atoms behave exotically when frozen, changing their basic physics. You are fine with having your head in the sand, i'm not. You say we can't know "Ultimate origin" so far all you have said to support your statement is we can't.

you are evoking something outside the universe to explain it, something you can't even comment on and you think this is an intellectual position? No one in there right mind takes aquinas or any of those meatbags seriously, you are smitten with bronze age logic and are unaware of the utter destruction of these arguments put forth by modern philosophers.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #220 on: March 26, 2012, 09:54:46 AM »

i can assert that no assertions can be made. and i proved it at the top of this page. at least in regards to finding certain truth. there are two forms of logic: deduction and induction. Deduction depends on induction for its premises, induction depends on sample size. Induction can not provide certainty (you dont know for certain the sun is going to rise tomorrow, you just know it always has in the past and thus think it very likely it will rise tomorrow.. its possible something happens that stops that from occuring.), and thus deduction can not provide certainty either.

but that is something a little different than the reason why we can make any assertions about the ultimate cause and origin of things.

we can certainly assert things, like E=MC2, and have them be true as far as we know it.

but when it comes to a question like = what caused that to happen?

A might explain B, but you first must explain A before B is actually explained. and then you must explain the explanation for A, and so on.

A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D causes E, and E causes F. But what causes A ? Well, X causes A. but what causes X ?

now do get it ?  when we speak of ultimate origin and cause we are incapable of knowing it because one can always pose questions of causality to whatever assertion is made.

yes, virtual particles "pop" into existence. lets work with that to deny causality. but why do they pop into existence?

you see, there can be no explanation.  and your very right when you say "what if there is no origin?"  good question ! there might not be an origin ! and then the question of ultimate origin is meaningless ! and there might not be an ultimate cause! and then the question about ultimate cause is meanginless !  BUT NEITHER OF THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD REFUTE THE FACT THAT WE CAN NOT KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE ORIGIN AND CAUSE ARE IF THERE ARE SUCH THING(S)  !! 



as for me using somethign outside the universe to explain the universe ..    thats an assumption your making. I make no assertions about what the nature of God would be if God does exist. Its possible God could be a pantheistic God, that the universe itself is God, God is the universe. Its not a very common idea but i think its the most natural of all ideas on the subject. that being said we could never know if its true or not.   however, i do find it strange that you find it strange that the explanation for any given thing ought not be outside itself.  is this true of any causation explanation, ever, anywhere?  is the explanation for oceanic waves inside the wave itself? 

Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #221 on: March 26, 2012, 09:57:46 AM »

btw im completey aware of all of the arguments made by modern philosophers and absolutely none of them are satisfactory.
Report to moderator   Logged
lovemonkey
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7750


Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate


« Reply #222 on: March 26, 2012, 10:02:49 AM »

i can assert that no assertions can be made. and i proved it at the top of this page. at least in regards to finding certain truth. there are two forms of logic: deduction and induction. Deduction depends on induction for its premises, induction depends on sample size. Induction can not provide certainty (you dont know for certain the sun is going to rise tomorrow, you just know it always has in the past and thus think it very likely it will rise tomorrow.. its possible something happens that stops that from occuring.), and thus deduction can not provide certainty either.

but that is something a little different than the reason why we can make any assertions about the ultimate cause and origin of things.

we can certainly assert things, like E=MC2, and have them be true as far as we know it.

but when it comes to a question like = what caused that to happen?

A might explain B, but you first must explain A before B is actually explained. and then you must explain the explanation for A, and so on.

A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D causes E, and E causes F. But what causes A ? Well, X causes A. but what causes X ?

now do get it ?  when we speak of ultimate origin and cause we are incapable of knowing it because one can always pose questions of causality to whatever assertion is made.

yes, virtual particles "pop" into existence. lets work with that to deny causality. but why do they pop into existence?

you see, there can be no explanation.  and your very right when you say "what if there is no origin?"  good question ! there might not be an origin ! and then the question of ultimate origin is meaningless ! and there might not be an ultimate cause! and then the question about ultimate cause is meanginless !  BUT NEITHER OF THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD REFUTE THE FACT THAT WE CAN NOT KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE ORIGIN AND CAUSE ARE IF THERE ARE SUCH THING(S)  !!  



as for me using somethign outside the universe to explain the universe ..    thats an assumption your making. I make no assertions about what the nature of God would be if God does exist. Its possible God could be a pantheistic God, that the universe itself is God, God is the universe. Its not a very common idea but i think its the most natural of all ideas on the subject. that being said we could never know if its true or not.   however, i do find it strange that you find it strange that the explanation for any given thing ought not be outside itself.  is this true of any causation explanation, ever, anywhere?  is the explanation for oceanic waves inside the wave itself?  



Also known as 'infinite regress'.

I remember you hating on Hawking for saying that it's useless to ask what came before the big bang(like asking what's north of the northern pole) but yet it might be the only viable way to look at the origin of the universe. As you say, an infinite regress takes you nowhere in terms of explaining things.

But still, and I also pointed this out some time ago, you can't say that we can't know anything about the origin of the universe. It's a self-contradicting statement in itself.
Report to moderator   Logged

from incomplete data
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #223 on: March 26, 2012, 10:13:39 AM »

theres nothing contradictory about my statement. im not making any assertions about the universe. im stating that no assertions can be made.  thats not an assertion about the universe its an assertion about our ability to have knowledge of the universe.

dawkins is retarded when he talks about the big bang. whose to say that our "universe" is the only universe? whose to say that universes didnt exist before ours existed?  besides those two points , the big bang simply tracing our universe back to a dense and hot state .. where did that dense and hot state come from? how long did it exist the way it was ?  Huh


the ONLY way to look at the universe from an honest perspective is with acceptance of your inability to understand it.
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15960


Robot


WWW
« Reply #224 on: March 26, 2012, 12:10:52 PM »

It's as bad as a Hulkster / ND thread... except infinitely more boring.

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!