Search this Topic:
Jul 19 09 11:54 PM
Jul 20 09 12:25 AM
Jul 20 09 1:54 AM
Firstly, you agreed that the question of god was not (necessarily) a scientific one ("My point is that just because it's not a theory (according to
science) or hypothesis doesn't mean it's not a valid question to ask. I don't let the rules of science dictate my curiosity. "). Secondly,
your statement doesn't make sense. If "does god exist" is a scientific question, then the answer is of the utmost pertinence to the discussion
of the possibility of god (Duh!). So how can it not really matter?
Well, the fact that god was postulated a long time ago and no proof has been discovered yet (in marked contrast with your example of atoms) is suggestive.
I agree that lack of discovery yet does not mean lack of ever proving something, but god is not gravity waves (which have been claimed to have been detected
indirectly anyway) or superstrings (where parts of the theory, or rather M theory which evolved from the string idea, have been used to solve things like the
black hole information paradox). God supposedly has a huge effect on the universe, according to theists, yet is invisible and intangible. That's
But you said: "who is to say that if there is a god that god would have an effect on any universe period let alone this one single unvisere(sic)
floating in a theoretical ocean of universes?" which is a god that is unfalsifiable.
Extreme? There is no evidence to support the idea of god's existence. It is not extreme in the slightest to say in that case with firm conviction that
god does not exist.
Define "religious", and define "god" while you're at it.
Religion: a belief in, with or without accompanied worship of, god or gods.
God: a being that is worshipped, specifically supernatural in form, with power over man and the natural laws. When God is mentioned as a singular entity it
is THE god, the creator of the universe, usually the JCI deity is inferred.
Pg 35 for me. I own a 2006 hardback copy.
The page numbering must be vastly different in the edition you have, or you've cocked-up the page number.
Though I have no fucking idea whatsoever about what you mean by an "astrological explanation". Or your assertion that the entire bible is also
based on astrology. I'm certainly aware of some astrological references in the bible, but to say the entire bible is based on astrology (in fact you
appear to be saying that all mythology is based on astrology) when it can be seen to have undergone various edits and writing phases (another discussion in
itself) would appear to be a massive over-simplification of the matter.
Your god doesn't really sound like much of a god at all. But if you're going to just redefine the concept of god to avoid admitting god doesn't
exist, why bother?
I watched part of it but turned it off because it was a load of shite.
C'mon skippy, try to keep up. The god botherers want to keep their cake and eat it too.
Liar: "There are many religious scientists who feel that God is not detectable by man. "
You appear to have an odd definition of religious if you don't think people who believe in god are religious.
If you mean that I used my brain and questioned things rather than taking the bible we were taught at face value, then yes. But I was polite, honest and
I accept that I don't know what it was like being raised by religious fuckwits for parents.
No, not really. People who have an absolute faith in the existence of god aren't asking themselves "does god exist?", are they?
The fact that above I've quoted Dawkins above in explaining a couple of arguments in relation to the science v god issue doesn't mean you should
assume I will defer to his authority on any subject, even if you actually provided quotes rather than your own assertion he said something.
If he said that nobody has yet shown how abiogenesis occurred I would have to agree - but that's not the same thing.
Evolution has a great deal to do with how WE got here, which was the question.
Well the implications of a quantum theory of gravity means that the universe cannot be said to have a beginning, and thus no reason to explain that
beginning. I could go into other long-winded arguments but I've previously done so several times here and elsewhere, so I won't bother. But you could
try putting "ex nihilo" into the search engine here at BB and see what comes up, for example.
But of course answering "where did the universe come from?" with "god" simply defers the question. It becomes "where did god come
from?". The answer of the theists (or deists) is "god just IS". Which is fine, except that we can say "the universe just IS"
I think you need to brush up on your quantum mechanics.
What is not the answer? The RNA hypothesis? Clay as a catalyst? Metabolism first? Cell vesicle first? Warm pools? Geothermal vents?
Abiogenesis as we might discuss the subject is not one idea but several different hypotheses.
So your little rant is a fucking joke, and a bad one at that.
You've just justified belief in god through saying that "nobody knows". Which is just inserting god to cover a gap in knowledge. God =
I expect he'll crawl out from under a rock at any moment.
Where exactly do you think god is not hiding then?
It's not like science does backflips daily. I don't turn on the TV over breakfast and expect to see a headline saying that the law of gravity has
been repealed, or that in fact DNA doesn't really do anything.
If they don't fuck with me, I don't fuck with them. Why should I? But idiots who want bronze age goatfuckers' campfire tales taught instead of
science in school, or that stop their kids having lifesaving blood transfusions or other medical treatment, or who simply brainwash and scare the fuck out of
them, well, the gloves are well and truly fucking off.
Except that religion is one of the reasons humans are so fucking barbaric to each other.
I disagree. Religion and government both control and manipulate the population, not vice versa. The power weilded by priests and politicians (one and the
same thing in many places) is vast, and greater the more ignorant the people who look to them for guidance.
I commend you for reading up on the right people such as Greene and Smolin, but perhaps you should keep more current. M-theory has effectively ousted strings
since it has been realised that the myriad string theories are just aspects of a more complete theory. Another dimension was added, and Hey-presto! we
arrived at M-theory.
I'm glad you mentioned Greene, in fact, since his work predicts that string theory will leave imprints in the CMB, which is one of the things the Planck
satellite launched this year is going to be used to look for.
What possibility? The possibility that an invisible, unobserved, pointless entity not needed to or that doesn't answer the question of where the universe
came from? There could be teapots in orbit around Betelgeuse, since we can't rule out the possibility completely, but that's no reason to actually
think there might be.
If god was a 50/50 chance, I would agree with you, but it's not. Once you have ascertained that the possibility is so low as to be discounted then you
may be satisfied that god doesn't exist. A personal visit from the Archangel Gabriel might change your mind, but that's always allowed in the face of
new and unexpected evidence.
Your objection is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, atheism and theology are both characterised by you as philosophy, so I'm simply pointing out
that science(which I've contrasted with philosophy) is not a limited "earthly" view, just as philosophy isn't (by very definition and
nature it cannot be, so by characterising atheism and theology as philosophy you refute your own accusation.
I always argue from the point of rational, scientific atheism, of course.
What laws are you saying you ignore? Gravity? Speed limits? Murder? Or are you simply saying that you don't give a fuck about logical, rational thinking
and just believe whatever stupid fucking shit takes your fancy?
Before it became popularised with a wave of stuff like the X-files in the '90s, nearly nobody had seen any aliens that have been called the
"greys". Then suddenly every kook coming out of the woodwork describes such a being. Same with "flying saucers".
The reason people see god or angels now, and not Pink Unicorns or for that matter, Apollo or Hermes, is down to the images and ideas that are popular in
And you say you know somebody, or they knows somebody who knows somebody, who has had a real experience of god. Of course you do. And the holy grail is lying
under some old junk in my shed.
I did wonder if using this example with you was a good idea or not, you being a conspiracy nut and all.
That part is not true. In fact there are perfectly good reasons like sleep paralysis, waking dreams, etc. Try reading, for example, The Science of Discworld
No, you haven't.
I'm talking about the schism in science about the proper interpretation of the theory of quantum mechanics. There's nothing religious about it.
Because your "definition" of god can hardly be said to be a deity at all. If anything.
Just shows what idiots some of these people are.
In the very broadest sense, yes, but the answer is "we don't know". In any case the brain is what produces and controls that electrical
activity. You would need to explain how your energy field generates and modulates itself, not to mention how such a thing could be conscious of anything
else. But that's fairly well beside the point, which I'll get to next.
Or are you defining god as something other than a first-cause argument?
Jul 21 09 12:51 AM
Tooth Fairy Agnostic
Then maybe I should have used the mulitverse theory as an example instead so that you would have no valid comeback.
I seriously suggest you looking into what I've said about the Bible, religion and astrology. I'm actually very surprised you don't already no
about it already being an atheist and all. If you are interested I can give you some links but I'm not going to waste my time unless you are interested.
That's not what I said you fucking monkey. I said that not all people who believe in a god are religious. Am I wrong?
Thanks for that. I'm sure your ugly piece of shit son will grow up to look like the slut his mother does with or without belief in God.
Um....does that question even make sense?
you really want me to believe that you are the only person on the planet who knows how everything came into existence? Fuck you.
Yes it is.
How WE got here, as in first the universe (which accommodates us) and then us. Yes evolution may (may being a stretch as far as abiogenesis is concerned) but
it does nothing to answer how everything came to be i.e the universe(s). You are reaching or playing dumb.
The universe has no beginning. God has no begging. All of you people are the same. Religious nut balls.
You are on to something now. The reason people (of certain religions only) say that God just is is because they have faith which doesn't require them to
think about it. Not that it would matter since we would probably first have to find god in order to even begin guessing how god came to exist.
No, I know my quantum mechanics well enough for this conversation. I would really love to see you prove this can be demonstrated.
Geothermal vents is the most plausible of the bunch.
Yes, I know which makes it all the more harder to sell. This is one of those instances in science where funded is needed so badly that they will resort to
Bad rants are better than bad guesses when it comes to science.
Jesus. You and your son Invunche are two peas in a pod. Are you sure you guys are the same person? I have never stated that I believe in god. I've gone
out of my way to use the words, possibility and I suspect when it comes to the existence of God.
Yet you cannot be certain of that. Yeah, forgive me for laughing my ass off you religious nut ball.
For the sake of entertainment? Maybe somewhere amongst the millions of supposed universes that we can't detect but think could exist.
Maybe the universe is inside the mind of god. That was a joke.
I don't even know what to say to this.
Somebody choosing what to do with their kids doesn't effect you so why get pissed about it?
You think that religious people are what's wrong with the world and that's why gov'ts are mass murdering people like Saddam did.
None of the major violence in our world today is a result of religion. Sure they want you to think that the crazy terrorists are doing it for god but
that's bullshit. It's all about power and greed. The two REAL problems with the world.
We as people allow ourselves to become the monsters politicians and priests are.
Indeed I'm not saying that string theory being non-sceintific and almost mystical
was not important in the roles of developing new theories.
I have many issues with M theory as well. That is an entire different discussion that I would rather have in a different thread.
The question of god is worth asking because nothing is created out of nothing for no reason.
I agree, God is not a 50/50 chance. More like a %10 chance he exists, maybe even a few lower.
I have to say everything twice here in two different ways just to get a simple point across. No where else on the web.
But in reality you do understand that you are just some guy who likes science and hates religion right?
You're not a scientist and you are not scholar and you are not the final say so on what is or isn't reality though you seem to act as if your
opinions are fact.
There is nothing more pathetic than somebody who knows for a fact he is right when there is no possibility of that person ever being able to even know if he
could be right.
What I'm trying to say (sigh) is that what you consider logical isn't always logical to me.
Not even almost true. You seriously need to study your shit before you speak. Maybe you'd never seen any "grey aliens" before that.
People in Africa were talking about grey's back before they could write. But that's a totally different topic.
The thing about your comment is it's irrelevant because nobody learned about God thought entertainment or going to the movies.
LOL. I know what you are talking about but never in this life time will you convince me that hundreds of thousands of people all mass hallucinate the exact
same objects in the sky at the same time.
Yes I have, but it wasn't me, I was just the messenger. I allowed actual scientists to prove you wrong.
But as far as using M theory to solve things like black hole information is non-sense. All of it is highly hypothetical to the point that it's almost
funny to think about. In fact the theory directly contradicts quantum mechanics and thus the rules of quantum mechanics had to be amended in order to
accommodate it. Sounds very religious to me. But you are saying now that science has used a theory (string theory) which cannot be proven to solve a
metaphysical type of problem that may or may not exist in the first place and certainly doesn't without contradiction. Very well thought out Rambo,
I'm surprised at how religious you are becoming with science. You will pretty much believe anything science comes up with nowadays huh?
Right. I believe you.
Yes and? I was trying to explain that people do believe in a living, breathing, physical god which you said they don't.
You seemed to be catching on and then......fumbled
No, god must be the first cause in order to be a god.
Jul 21 09 2:25 AM
Jul 22 09 3:10 AM
But your pretty picture is pretty worthless anyway in these days of Photoshop.
Don't you ever take notice of anything? I've already talked about the indirect evidence for multiverses. In fact also dark energy has been argued as
evidence of a multiverse, as in the chaotic inflation/string landscape idea. But never mind. These are at most a few decades old. God was postulated how long
Sure, why not? I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Obviously there are a lot of conections between astrology and mythology from the
obvious to the subtle, but I'm wondering what in fact you are talking about. I mean, you could be talking about Velikovsky for all I know.
I believe I gave you a definition of religious. Someone who believes in god is by definition religious. So yes, you're wrong.
That's just uncalled for. I've noticed your mood is worse lately. Are we having a dry spell?
I never said that. We don't need to know as long as there is no reason to believe "goddidit" is the answer.
No, it's not. "How did we get here?" is asking how humans appeared on the earth. The actual mechanism of how life started - on a world covered
in a vast chemical soup of oceans filled with billions upon billions of tons of biological chemicals and precursor molecules over a period of several hundred
thousand years - if indeed it did start here and not elsewhere to be transported here piggybacking a ride on a piece of interplanetary or interstellar debris
- is merely one part of the answer, which includes the inflationary big bang, nucleosynthesis, stellar and planetary formation, abiogenesis and evolution.
but the universe having no beginning is something that comes straight out of the physics
I'm sick of dickheads not understanding the implications of QM and the beginning of the universe.
I really can't be fucking bothered explaining it to you right now as (and Mac will testify to this) I've just been doing this at the Pub and the
Wasteland this month.
Are you trying to say that quantum fluctuations don't actually occurr? Point me to a peer-review paper, otherwise shut the fuck up.
And you base this opinion on what? I'm sure you are a highly esteemed, nobel prize winning evolutionary molecular biologist, of course.
Nobody knows. The problem with vents is that they would destroy chemicals quickly by the heat of the water, but convection currents might take molecules away
out of the heat zone fast enough, but nobody really knows how life started with any degree of confidence.
This in no way means it could not have happened naturally, of course, it's just that we haven't worked out the mechanism yet.
The problem with vents is that they would destroy chemicals quickly by the heat of the water, but convection currents might take molecules away out of the
heat zone fast enough, but nobody really knows how life started with any degree of confidence.
That sentence makes no sense as it is written. If you are going to suggest that researchers just make stuff up to get funding then I'm just going to stop
talking to you right now.
Bullshit. Science is full of bad guesses, but the point is that they get shown to be wrong, and thus science advances.
Doesn't matter, since that was your excuse. Your excuse for some weird brand of agnosticism, apparently. Not belief in, lack of disbelief, in fact, based
on nothing but not knowing. How is that supposed to make sense?
And you can't be sure there are no teapots round Mars or Invisible Pink Unicorns under your bed, you religious nutball.
Still haven't got that first cause thing, have you?
Actually I wasn't laughing.
Well don't fucking say anything then.
Those sorts of people who want to turn my nice secular society into a religious one get on my fucking tit ends.
But from a more straightforward point of view, those religious fuckwits tend to get in other people's faces anyway, and tell them how to live their
Well it's ONE of the reasons. Saddam was at odds with the Shias and Iran partly over the fact that the Ba'ath party's secular rule was opposed by
Let me get this straight - you don't believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Taliban have nothing whatsoever to do with religious conflict?
"Religion is wonderful stuff for keeping the common people quiet." - Napoleon
"Religion is wonderful stuff for keeping the common people quiet." - Napoleon
Says who? Quantum mechanics has already put paid to classical ideas of causality, but even if it hadn't, the very fact that "before" the big
bang there is no time to create a causal structure makes nonsense of the idea that the universe requires a cause. Events in spacetime in the realm of
classical physics require a cause. Quantum effects and universes that are not in spacetime themselves do not.
Oh great Wordclock, sage of sages - pray tell this ignorant listener how you arrived at this estimate of the odds?
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but if you expressed yourself more clearly then I would not have to keep badgering you to expand or clarify on a
And you're just a dick who likes to argue with people on the net. I'm an underachiever - what are you?
I would like to think that my opinions and arguments stand on their own merits, whether they are of my own conception or by referring to the experts in their
But I am an expert in the field of being an atheist, I think.
How is it that you feel you are able to offer unqualified opinion of atheism, but I am not allowed to give mine?
So you do believe in PAP then.
BTW, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't trust my government much, and yours less.
Of course you wouldn't be aware, because I don't think I've really discussed it, but as a teenager I was into all that paranormal stuff. I have,
or had, several books on the subject of UFOs, among other things. I believe I know enough about the subject to converse with you at some length.
But it certainly is a different topic. Perhaps I should make another forum, "Paranormal crap & conspiracy theories"?
Missed the point. People learned about god through the fact that it is part of the culture. Different places, different cultures, different gods. Isn't
that odd? Only if you think there is just one god. Otherwise it makes perfect sense.
you must be talking about things like the Phoenix lights ot the Mexico City sightings? Different matter entirely.
No, you quoted some stuff that was either out of date or misleading. Strings are dead. Long live Branes. Go back and look at Greene's CMB stuff, for
example. Or holography and the Black Hole Information Paradox solution. Go on, I dare you.
Obviously you haven't actually looked into it otherwise you wouldn't have spouted that nonsensical drivel. Look, Wikipedia has a very good article or
two on the sbject. Go on, you're one click away. Shoo. Read. Learn something for once
Oh, and the other "religious" thing about the Copenhagen solution is the implication that a conscious observer is needed for the universe to
actually exist. Kind of, "I think, therefore the universe is".
No, no fumble. I carried it all the way in for a touchdown. You've been caught completely wrong-footed by the fake handoff.
Any god made up of conscious energy would then not be a first cause, just as god could not exist in another universe and still be a first cause. Energy would
need to have its existence explaining, and thus cannot itself be the explanation. Unless you say something can exist without cause, in which case god is to
be ditched as an unneeded and unwarranted addition.
This is all getting overly long, complicated and convoluted. Let's go back to square one:
My definition was not specifically about the JCI deity, though it encompasses it. Mine also encompasses other gods, whereas yours does not:
Indescribable means that it is something that cannot be described (despite the fact the word appears in a definitionimage ). So what does that mean? God
can't be any sort of physical being, as I've already explained. So god would have to be something completely outside physics and any idea of reality.
Which means permanently out of reach of science, and so permanently unfalsifiable.
And in any case, the origin of the universe is a scientific question. If you answer "God" to the question, then either god is a scientific
question, or there is a scientific answer to go with the unscientific "God" and again, we're back to an unnecessary complication to the
And furthermore, if god does have an effect on the universe, then how can he be undescribable? Observations of the effect of god on the universe would lead
to deductions about the nature and properties of godhead. So god is logically impossible: if he effects the universe, he cannot be god, but if he does not
effect the universe, he cannot be god.
Good night, sleep tight.image
Jul 22 09 3:17 AM
Jul 22 09 8:56 PM
Velikovsky died 30 years ago. So which of his lectures have you caught lately?
You kinda blew away your credibility there fella.
Jul 22 09 9:01 PM
Jul 22 09 9:21 PM
Jul 22 09 11:40 PM
Right. And everyone knows how to make fake photoshopped pictures look realistic too. You do realize that Photoshop isn't a cheap piece of software right?
Seems that thinking this pic would be photoshopped would directly violate your precious Occam's Razor theory. The simplest answer would be that I simply
took a simple picture.
But what is really funny is that when I saw your page numbers were off according the edition I own I didn't automatically assume you were lying
Don't you take notice of anything? As I mentioned, M-theory is not proven nor will it be anytime soon if it even can be.
Some scientists consider just theories "fringe" science.
If you actually believe and not just consider mulitverse theories then you are desperate indeed.
You started at Sting Theory,
I shot that down so you jumped to M-theory which is merely Sting Theory re-designed.
I'm only saying that using Multiverse theory to say there is no God is really reaching.
Obviously you didn't read my definition of religion then. Religion does not necessitate a God.
I gotta admit when I saw that you actually said something that rude about my parents I was pissed only because I have been very open about my parents here at
this site which was a risk. I don't appreciate you calling my parents ignorant fuckwits because you happen to disagree with what I've told you they
believe. Of course none of the things I said to you should you take personal seeing as how I don't even know your wife or kid or even you. I just said it
to make you as pissed as I was when I read your insult. But now I could give a shit less because this is just the internet and none of it even really matters
anyways. Sorry for the insult, I actually feel bad about it. Let's move on.
So it doesn't matter just as long as it wasn't god. Okay, now I see where your head is at.
First of all, I thought I was making it clear that I am looking for the answer to the BIG question. How did we (as in everything in existence including
humans) get here?
In order for there to be humans there has to be a universe and in order for there to a universe
there had to be a big bang and if there had to be a big band
there had to be a cause.
Essentially you are telling me that nothing happened before the Big Bang because nothing existed before the Big Bang but that doesn't settle the
question. Nobody has yet settled that question as far as I know.
Secondly, as for how did we (as in only humans) get here?
We have not solved that problem either. You say that you know how it happened and yet Richard Dawkins says that nobody knows and I am expected to believe
but the universe having no beginning is something that comes straight out of the physics
I thought the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
But I thought the universe didn't have a beginning.
Do you even know what you are talking about right now because I don't. I'm sure you think you do.
Out of the options you gave me I picked geothermal vents as the most plausible and now you want to make fun of me for picking that one without having been a
molecular biologist? So, if you yourself are not a molecular biologist then what fucking business do you have even asking me the question to begin with you
fucking hypocrite? Another example of you acting like you're something you aren't.
Nobody knows? Really? Gee, thanks for telling me exactly what I've been saying the entire fucking time dick head. Jesus!
But then again I'm no molecular biologist so who could I know that nobody knows?
Well no shit. If it happened then of course it was natural.
Right. Well like I said, I think it's possible but very far fetched. Kinda like god.
But at the same time if you really think that scientists don't ever make shit up to get funding I'm going to keep talking to you but I'll be
laughing in your face the entire time.
As you just described it it makes no sense. Here is how I sum myself up: I don't not believe in God. But I don't believe in God. I suspect there may
be a sort of god that exists but I wouldn't bet on it. He may or may not exist, nobody can know but that doesn't mean nobody ever will. How hard is
that to understand? It's about as logical as it gets.
I don't have a bed frame, just a mattress on top of a box spring. I just lifted up the box spring and nothing is there.
As for the tea pots around mars, I couldn't say they aren't there so why bother trying to convince people they aren't? But I suspect there is a
reason why nobody thinks they are there, you don't?
No and neither has anybody else said as I mentioned, you argued with then eventually agreed on.
That's no surprise. You take yourself to seriously my friend.
Your society huh? That's not really the way it works. Society is what the people make it.
If the people want a religious society then we get a religious society.
It's not for you to decide
and your crusade will have no effect.
Trust me, I wish I didn't live in a religious society but I do and I'm not about to take on the entire country for my selfish wants.
As I was saying, why try to fuck with other people's values?
Because you think they are fucking with yours? Let's grow up. Both atheists and religious people can be too much for me sometimes.
So let me get this right. You are telling me that something be created from nothing and this can be demonstrated?
You're not an underachiever, you are exactly where you belong.
I'm just some dick who lies to argue with people on the web. Aren't we all?
Atheism in it's definition is very reasonable, it's when you actually let an atheist talk about atheism is when the trouble starts.
Well obviously you need to pick the books back up or maybe you read the wrong ones because "greys" have "been around" for a long, long
I think that the fact that all cultures have a god or gods which are all basically the same but with varying traits is amazing. I think it could be more than
So then I guess you'll avoid addressing it even though you brought it up? Fine.
2006 is out of date? What about my 2007 editions? Are they out of date too?
The only reason I brought up the flaws in String Theory was because you used it as an example.
But I'm glad you did because it goes to show that real scientists are indeed capable of putting faith into things that are unprovable. Like I said
M-theory is an entirely different subject.
Oh, you get your info on science from wikipedia.....no wonder.
I actually kind of agree with that but in fact we humans are the conscious observer. Is it possible that if we humans weren't here to perceive the
universe the universe would not be? I'm sure that one gets you red faced huh?
How so? And why would god existing in another universe mean he couldn't be the first cause?
How can mine? I mean I do not believe in one specific god so how can I be expected to defend any of them? Yours encompasses all gods because you don't
think that there are any gods. Think about it for a second.
I think indescribable could also be applied to the existence of the universe as well. It only means that we do not understand what it is.
Nah, a person can have emotions which are indescribable to that person but that doesn't mean that the emotions don't have a scientific cause.
Which brings us full circle to my opinion that it doesn't matter if god is a scientific question or not.
There are things in science we know now that would have been indescribable without previous discoveries. Indescribable is the wrong word to use. I
shouldn't have used it because just the fact that god must be the first cause means that he is describable to a degree.
or you could simply go to my site and find dozens of Velikovsky videos as well
Jul 23 09 2:21 AM
Jul 23 09 5:53 AM
How many pages is the paperback edition?
I never did. You've a guilty conscience or something. I suggested a different edition (correct option) or typo. I never even suggested you were lying.
Seriously, you need to chill the fuck out.
I already pointed out how Greene has predicted that variations in the CMB will prove or disprove M-theory. The observatory launched in May. Watch this space.
It was one of the criticisms levelled, but in fact the idea has become the de facto accepted idea.
It's a natural development of it. It's not redesigned, it is that those working on different string theories relaised they were just parts of a
I assume you're talking about chaotic inflation here then.
I did, but god necessitates religion.
I believe what I said was that I admitted I did not have the personal experience of being raised by religious fuckwits. If you chose to interpret this as
meaning I believed your parents to be such, you have read more into it than was written.
No, I'm deeply curious and want to know. But to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how
improbable, is the answer".
The universe is chock-full of biological chemicals and the elements needed to create them. Comets and meteorites contain amino acids. Is it really so hard to
believe that those biological precursor molecules, given enough time and a large enough test tube, as it were, could form a self-replicating hereditary
And just above it seemed like you were talking about the origin of life instead. No matter.
Firstly, I will refer you to Hawking and the No Boundary Proposal. No singularity, no point of beginning, the universe would just BE, finite and unbounded,
as observations also indicate and a quantum theory of gravity will dictate.
Secondly, for something to have a cause, then time is needed to give a sequence of cause and effect.
a naked singularity can create matter and energy from nothing and otherwise ignore or break down the laws of physics.
And we could say that 'what came "before" the big bang?' is a meaningless question.
Are you talking about human evolution or the origin of life now?
I don't believe I did say that in that context (abiogenesis). But we have several possible hypotheses, among which you (for whatever reason) have a
Common misconception. Go back and read chapter 8 of ABHOT again.
I think you effectively said you don't believe in quantum mechanics, the most rigorously tested scientific theory ever. I don't think you know what
you are talking about.
Excuse me for crediting you with more affinity with the subject than was warranted. I shall try to remember to treat you as an uneducated moron next time.
"Nobody knows exactly how life started on earth" is not the same as "nobody knows how we got here".
If it was natural because it happened, then no god need apply.
I'm not even sure what to say to that. I don't see how it is supposed to make sense, but then I'm sober right now.
I thought TCY was the only one banging this drum. Come on then, cite some examples.
but to remain agnostic about something for which there is no evidence and no reason to entertain the notion except that it cannot be disproved is ludicrous.
You would have to be agnostic about everything, invisible pink unicorns, Martian teapots, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Geraldine the next door
neighbour's kid's invisible friend - everything. Or else you are suggesting god is a special case, and then have to justify that to yourself - and
Are you a tooth fairy agnostic?
Dude, they're invisible pink unicorns. Fuck's sake.
What? I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about now.
No, I realised you weren't being serious, the ironic thing was it was one of the most interesting ideas you'd come up with.
Not if i can help it.
I disagree, as the recent rise in atheism has shown.
It wouldn't be so bad but you should feel doubly aggrieved as you have a constitution wherein the nation is supposed to be secular.
Because other people's values - from honour-killings to killing homosexuals - might not be what I or a free and fair society want.
If by "grow up" you mean accept the status quo and become a productive member of society, don't rock the boat - then Not Much Fucking Chance.
If I didn't have a wife and kid to worry about, oh, and bills to pay - I'd be rioting on the fucking streets.
That's essentially what a quantum fluctuation is.
I do wonder what would have happened if I'd decided to go for the astronomy degree instead.
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, but if atheism is not arrived at through reason and knowledge, what is it?
Religion has set itself against science in that science has done away with many of the things held by religion to be true, so if atheists are the opposite of
believers, it is not to be wondered at that atheism and science are associated.
I thought you'd read The God Delusion?
The explosion of grey sightings only took off with their popularisation in the 80s and 90s.
Did you know that the type of aliens seen has a lot to do with the nationality of the person who claims to have seen them?
I was talking about abductions specifically, wasn't I? I'm afraid it's a while since I was really keeping up with UFOlogy. I could look into it,
but right now I can't be bothered.
No, it's the same subject. Strings are dead because M-theory has shown they are all just aspects of it. If M-theory can be shown to have merit then
obviously string theories - each of which is just an aspect of it - will be vindicated.
I believe far more qualified persons than myself have already rebutted the notion.
Because if god existed IN another universe then explanation of that universe would also be required. If god requires a universe to reside in then he cannot
be an ultimate, first cause, obviously.
Yours was a purely monotheistic definition. Mine was not. Think about it.
There's a difference between currently defying scientific description and indescribable by definition.
There is vocabulary available to describe the full gamut of human emotions. That someone lacks the vocabulary doesn't make them indescribable by
Either god is a scientific question or not.
But in fact a god that is outside all of our sense of physicality and scientific understanding is indescribable.
Disturbing enough in itself.
Jul 23 09 5:57 AM
so you watch old videos of Velikovsky, though you made it sound as if you attending actual lessons.
He was still nuts & I'm beginning to think you are too.
Since when did this become you personal forum, you silly pussy?
Jul 23 09 2:32 PM
Jul 23 09 4:42 PM
You're the one who jumped, I have nothing to apologise for.
Jul 23 09 9:49 PM
Jul 23 09 9:59 PM
Jul 23 09 10:20 PM
Jul 23 09 10:33 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.