|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 03/01/2006 : 20:13:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am sure Shaw does not understand that either a eternal deity, or eternal matter are required for the universe(s).
Uh, because they aren't? We already went over this, bill. You might want to hit the side of your head, you're skipping.
But way to totally fail to understand Shaw's argument. Even more amusing is that you assume the lack of comprehension is his.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/01/2006 20:15:11 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 23:14:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Notice how HH is the king of smoke and mirror tactics. Rather then discuss the context of my post, he refers me to a lame article where anyone who subscribes to cause and effect theory, in relation to an atheistic universe, was “childish”. That's rich, and a diversion tactic.
How is it a diversion tactic to post an easy-to-read article by a physicist that addresses exactly the subject we're talking about? Is it a diversion because it clearly explains how science proves that your argument is crap?
quote:
Next he goes into a bio of his delusional grandma rather then deal with the context of the post.
What is the point of further discussing the context of your posts? Several people on this forum have gone on for pages and pages explaining to you, through a dozen different approaches, how causality is not a scientific theory or law, how physics (not mere ideas, but scientific theories with hard evidence behind them) has made the whole question of whether the universe is eternal or has a beginning, irrelevant. This Shaw quote is most concise: “there can no more be a First Cause than a first inch in a circle.” Given that after all that you just still don't even address our arguments except to mock them, Humbert was reminded of his grandmother and shared the story. Personally, I found it quite enjoyable to read and an accurate comparison.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 02:58:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) I think in reality you have a complex that you try to cast on me. You are worried that you are going to follow the same path as your grandma, lost in a delusion when you die.
No, I just know first hand about the peasant mentality you exhibit. I'm not worried about following her path, since I do not allow my religion to trump reality.
Speaking of smoke and mirrors though, bill, how is it you've not addressed the fact that we are talking about an observed phenomenon here, a phenomenon that disproves your notion of a "law of cause and effect?" You are in denial of reality, bill. Why don't you address it?
quote:
No, I just know first hand about the peasant mentality you exhibit. I'm not worried about following her path, since I do not allow my religion to trump reality.
(bill) Right, your religion of atheism.
quote:
Speaking of smoke and mirrors though, bill, how is it you've not addressed the fact that we are talking about an observed phenomenon here, a phenomenon that disproves your notion of a "law of cause and effect?" You are in denial of reality, bill. Why don't you address it?
(bill) Where tiny little particles seem to pop out of no where? If this were the case all you have proven is a second dimension is possible. You have not explained the existence of the matter at all, only that the matter moved (popped) from one dimension to the other. You don't know that this second dimension is not the only one beside ours, nor do you know that time and space is distorted in this second dimension. You just speculate, for your convenience, that it is. And your hypotheses of “infinite dimensions, where in just one dimension, maybe time and space as we know them is repealed”, is just philosophy. Pure speculation on the atheist's part, let alone you have no clue on how one little particle turns into the entire universe? So the atheist still has the problem of matter either being eternal, (an uncaused eternal first cause of itself therefore completely self sufficient) or, it had an eternal first cause, rather then an eternal self cause.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 03:01:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
[quote]When a lawyer finds a loophole in the law, he wants to exploit a legislator's mistake. When a scientist discovers a loophole in a natural law, he's uncovered a deeper truth about the natural world. Your analogy is false.
(bill) Here is a perfect example of marf trying to slip in her false analogy, and she is slick at it. I was comparing atheists to defense attorneys and she changes the topic in mid conversation to scientists and lawyers. As if all atheists are, by default, scientists. She knows atheism is much more wrapped in philosophy then law.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 03:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Creationist fallback position:
quote:
(bill) Right, your religion of atheism.
I was wondering when we'd see that one. Kind'a like the "religion" of evolution we hear so much about, eh Bill? quote:
(bill) Here is a perfect example of marf trying to slip in her false analogy, and she is slick at it. I was comparing atheists to defense attorneys and she changes the topic in mid conversation to scientists and lawyers. As if all atheists are, by default, scientists. She knows atheism is much more wrapped in philosophy then law.
And creationism is not?
Like theists of all sorts, atheists are found in all walks of life, albeit in a tiny minority. Again. you produce unsubstantiated gibberish.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 05:37:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Creationist fallback position:
quote:
(bill) Right, your religion of atheism.
I was wondering when we'd see that one. Kind'a like the "religion" of evolution we hear so much about, eh Bill? quote:
(bill) Here is a perfect example of marf trying to slip in her false analogy, and she is slick at it. I was comparing atheists to defense attorneys and she changes the topic in mid conversation to scientists and lawyers. As if all atheists are, by default, scientists. She knows atheism is much more wrapped in philosophy then law.
And creationism is not?
Like theists of all sorts, atheists are found in all walks of life, albeit in a tiny minority. Again. you produce unsubstantiated gibberish.
quote:
(bill) Right, your religion of atheism.
Creationist fallback position:
(bill) I have no reason to need a fallback. The atheist is stuck with explaining the prospects of his little particles being eternal themselves, or they had an eternal first cause. Those are his choices. And if you care to inject your little hypotheses on the matter remember, only science, and no philosophy, on this forum.
quote:
I was wondering when we'd see that one. Kind'a like the "religion" of evolution we hear so much about, eh Bill?
(bill) I would just call it bad philosophy, and be done with it.
quote:
She knows atheism is much more wrapped in philosophy then law.
And creationism is not?
(bill) So your not arguing the fact that atheism is much more to do about bad philosophy then any natural law? Because I agree..
quote:
Like theists of all sorts, atheists are found in all walks of life, albeit in a tiny minority.
(bill) Again, I would agree with you here...
quote:
Again. you produce unsubstantiated gibberish.
(bill) But yet you have no problem, what so ever, with completely ignoring a eternal void in the origin of the atheistic universe, and just brush it aside with a sweep of your dreamt up philosophy...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 06:14:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane, I mean Bill, you ignorant slut.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(bill) Yes, dirty fat bastard?
See, name calling can be fun, and really makes for a serious looking forum. *sigh*
No sense of humor, apparently...*sigh*
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78eupdate.phtml
You find calling someone an "ignorant slut" as humors?
What a simpleton you are.
Okay Bill, you didn't get the reference or you don't think it's funny. So, I apologies. You're not a slut…
I apologies as well. I retract dirty fat bastard. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 07:51:37 [Permalink]
|
And yet, Bill continues to refuse to enlighten us as to the identity of this god or demon that he espouses so closely. It is a nuisance trying to make a guess as there are so many, so many, but until he enlightens us, guess we must. Or put the question.
Could he be a follower of the Nazarene, he who walked upon the waters?
Or the grotesque monster of the Old Testament?
Or the Great Feathered Serpent in whose sacred name, rivers of innocent blood flowed down the sides of pyramids.
Could it be Lucifer, Bringer of Light?
Cthulhu, mayhap?
So many; so very many yet to be noted here....
How can one claim the existence of anything without first at least attempting to identify it?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 08:04:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) But yet you have no problem, what so ever, with completely ignoring a eternal void in the origin of the atheistic universe, and just brush it aside with a sweep of your dreamt up philosophy...
The atheist needs to explain nothing beyond that which he has reliable reference for.
The creationist, on the other hand, must ever wave the Book, spout nonsense, and make strident claims that he has exactly nothing with which to back up. His conjecture is: "If I shout loud enough, everyone will believe." Which, of course, is no more than another delusion.
I am beginning to suspect that you need to get your meds updated. The fanciful world you live in really doesn't exist outside of your head.
Now then, which god, eh? Or are you incapable of even figuring that out?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 08:20:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
No, we only know that matter as we know it came into being with the Big Bang.
(bill) Right, here is where the atheist will enter the hypothetical and start hypothesizing on unknown universes where if the "laws" and effects of time and space as well as "cause and effect" and "commonsense" were somehow "suspended", or, if only for a brief moment, we could "suspend" "commonsense" and "cause and effect" then we might have a case for matter popping in and out of existence. If the atheist freely admits that he/she "does not know" what happened, or existed before the BB then they have no basis to make the premises, or to even assume, that matter in any form, existed before the big bang as they simpley "do not know"
That's exactly correct, except it's true for everyone, not just atheists.
Oh, and "commonsense" fails in many situations, like when dealing with relativistic speeds or the realm of the very small (quantum mechanics). Common sense often isn't. Your insistence that it is a reliable tool in all situations (including "before" the Big Bang) is simply a demonstration of you grasping at straws.quote:
It appears as if you might hold the position of eternal matter that might exist in an unknown universe, or it might pop into existence through an unknown process where time and space, cause and effect do not exist, as we know them to exist, which maybe caused, or was involved in the existence and first cause of our universe?
I hold the position that we cannot know what occured "before" the Big Bang, so all options are equally as likely.quote:
Just as I predicted. The atheist will try to hypothesize an eternal existence, or at the minimum they hypothesize on the suspension of cause and effect, time and space, if only for just a brief moment in time.
And you are hypothesizing a God. So what of it?quote:
They have to in order to get rid of that pesky ol theory of cause and effect that just won't go away when they try to construct an atheistic universe based in reality.
And you hypothesize an "eternal" God in order to get rid of the same thing. How is your argument any better?quote:
One more time Dave. The universe is not eternal, you and NASA both acknowledged this. Therefor the universe had a point in time when it began to exist. If it had a point in time in which it began to exist then it had a first cause. If the first cause for the finite universe was not eternal then a first cause will be required for the first cause. If the first cause of the first cause is not eternal then it will require a first cause as well. And without an eternal first cause you are stuck in circular logic, Dave. Now that was not so hard to follow was it, Dave?
No, it's not hard to follow, but it's not circular logic. There is no way for us, using either science or logic, to distinguish between the universe being "turtles all the way down" and there being a God for whom there was no cause.quote:
Now here is where you and I severely split. I subscribe to the notion that the eternal first cause is an eternal deity, based off of the definition of deity.
I haven't seen you offer any such definition.quote:
While you subscribe that the eternal first cause is, well, nothing.
Lying about other people is a sin, Bill. I subscribe to the notion that it is impossible for us to know the cause of the Big Bang.quote:
Unless pressed, then the eternal first cause must be matter in one form or another.
Liar.quote:
But how does eternal matter exist in a finite universe?
Nobody said that eternal matter exists in this universe.quote:
Just hypothesize about "suspending" "commonsense" and "cause and effect" if for just a moment and alas, after the repeal of time and space, "cause and effect" and "commonsense", if just for flash, the atheistic universe begins to take shape.
This made no sense at all.quote:
Ok, then give me one example of another. I asked you to do this last post and you refused.
Liar. I gave you a few examples.quote:
Yet you continue to offer up nothing in it's place:
Bill: The blue house has two doors.
Dave: Why should I believe that it only has two?
Bill: Ok Dave, if you know of more then show them to me.
Dave: Why should I believe that it only has two?...
And there you repeat the same lie. I gave you examples. You didn't even acknowledge them.quote:
Ok Dave, who was the first cause of your "non-eternal" first cause of the universe? How can you even have a "non-eternal" first cause of the universe? I think you just made that term up?
You're just blind. If our scientists, someday, are able to create a whole new universe (as is suggested may be possible), then that new universe will have a non-eternal cause (people in this universe). Since we cannot know what caused the Big Bang, then it's possible that it was caused by non-eternal beings in a "previous" universe.quote:
If it's not eternal, then by definition, it is not the first cause.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 09:28:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) But yet you have no problem, what so ever, with completely ignoring a eternal void in the origin of the atheistic universe, and just brush it aside with a sweep of your dreamt up philosophy...
The atheist needs to explain nothing beyond that which he has reliable reference for.
The creationist, on the other hand, must ever wave the Book, spout nonsense, and make strident claims that he has exactly nothing with which to back up. His conjecture is: "If I shout loud enough, everyone will believe." Which, of course, is no more than another delusion.
I am beginning to suspect that you need to get your meds updated. The fanciful world you live in really doesn't exist outside of your head.
Now then, which god, eh? Or are you incapable of even figuring that out?
quote:
And yet, Bill continues to refuse to enlighten us as to the identity of this god or demon that he espouses so closely. It is a nuisance trying to make a guess as there are so many,
(bill) Just apply the attributes of eternal existence and infinite power, if the subject does not poses these attributes of deity then we know he is not the one. This will weed out many of your prospects from the get go.
quote:
Could he be a follower of the Nazarene, he who walked upon the waters?
(bill) Na, he is not eternal nor is he infinite. He is a created being.
quote:
Or the Great Feathered Serpent in whose sacred name, rivers of innocent blood flowed down the sides of pyramids.
(bill) Na, the great serpent is not eternal.
quote:
Could it be Lucifer, Bringer of Light?
(bill) Created being
quote:
So many; so very many yet to be noted here....
(bill) Yet so many can be easily dismissed as not a deity rather quickly.
quote:
How can one claim the existence of anything without first at least attempting to identify it?
(bill) What's the point in debating the name/DOB/SS# of the deity when you do not even subscribe to a deity at all? Let's not put the cart in front of the horse.
Let's sum up what we have covered so far.
The universe exists and is not eternal. I would hold that the first cause of the universe would be eternal. If the cause was not eternal then it would require a beginning and therefor it would not be the first cause. Since the first cause would be eternal I put a high probability on the eternal first cause of the universe being a deity. I base this probability off of the definition of deity, which indicate the entity would be eternal and infinite, if it were a deity.
The atheist position will contend that they believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that small tiny particles, at the atomic level, have been observed popping in and out of existence. If so, they have provided evidence for a possible second dimension. From there the philosophy is really poured on thick as the atheist will hypothesize that if there might be a second dimension then we can just assume there will be an infinite amount of dimensions to choose from. The atheist will next speculate, based on nothing, that in this possible second dimension, time and space must be seriously distorted. If it is not, then in one of the infinite amount of dimensions that they speculated, for no reason were out there, one would. Or least they speculate that one of them would. In this one dimension they speculate that maybe time and space, as we know them, are suspended or distorted, and from this speculative dimension, in which they have no evidence that it exists, the matter that might have been used in the cause of the big bang may have existed, we speculate.
So even though they claim to only except scientific and testable data, the atheist will give a purely materialistic existence and cause to the universe a high probability, based off their own philosophy and nothing else. How lame and what a double standard. Their philosophy, somehow slips by the testability requirement and gets a rubber stamp approval for high probability from a group of skeptics, who pride themselves on testability, yet use their own philosophy to make up probability numbers that would satisfy their conscience. Nice little false dichotomy they got going there. No to even mention they have no clue how tiny little atomic particles turn into complex universes? Nor do they realize that giving the particle an infinite amount of dimensions to pop through does not explain the existence of the matter to begin with. The matter was either eternal, or it had a time in which it began to exist. Weather it was in this dimension or not is irrelevant. Adding philosophical infinite amounts of dimensions so that the matter can always stay one step ahead of having to declare eternal existence or a first cause is just that, philosophy, and is untested and holds no evidence other then the atheist will say "it just happened"
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 10:09:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
No, we only know that matter as we know it came into being with the Big Bang.
(bill) Right, here is where the atheist will enter the hypothetical and start hypothesizing on unknown universes where if the "laws" and effects of time and space as well as "cause and effect" and "commonsense" were somehow "suspended", or, if only for a brief moment, we could "suspend" "commonsense" and "cause and effect" then we might have a case for matter popping in and out of existence. If the atheist freely admits that he/she "does not know" what happened, or existed before the BB then they have no basis to make the premises, or to even assume, that matter in any form, existed before the big bang as they simpley "do not know"
That's exactly correct, except it's true for everyone, not just atheists.
Oh, and "commonsense" fails in many situations, like when dealing with relativistic speeds or the realm of the very small (quantum mechanics). Common sense often isn't. Your insistence that it is a reliable tool in all situations (including "before" the Big Bang) is simply a demonstration of you grasping at straws.quote:
It appears as if you might hold the position of eternal matter that might exist in an unknown universe, or it might pop into existence through an unknown process where time and space, cause and effect do not exist, as we know them to exist, which maybe caused, or was involved in the existence and first cause of our universe?
I hold the position that we cannot know what occured "before" the Big Bang, so all options are equally as likely.quote:
Just as I predicted. The atheist will try to hypothesize an eternal existence, or at the minimum they hypothesize on the suspension of cause and effect, time and space, if only for just a brief moment in time.
And you are hypothesizing a God. So what of it?quote:
They have to in order to get rid of that pesky ol theory of cause and effect that just won't go away when they try to construct an atheistic universe based in reality.
And you hypothesize an "eternal" God in order to get rid of the same thing. How is your argument any better?quote:
One more time Dave. The universe is not eternal, you and NASA both acknowledged this. Therefor the universe had a point in time when it began to exist. If it had a point in time in which it began to exist then it had a first cause. If the first cause for the finite universe was not eternal then a first cause will be required for the first cause. If the first cause of the first cause is not eternal then it will require a first cause as well. And without an eternal first cause you are stuck in circular logic, Dave. Now that was not so hard to follow was it, Dave?
No, it's not hard to follow, but it's not circular logic. There is no way for us, using either science or logic, to distinguish between the universe being "turtles all the way down" and there being a God for whom there was no cause.quote:
Now here is where you and I severely split. I subscribe to the notion that the eternal first cause is an eternal deity, based off of the definition of deity.
I haven't seen you offer any such definition.quote:
While you subscribe that the eternal first cause is, well, nothing.
Lying about other people is a sin, Bill. I subscribe to the notion that it is impossible for us to know the cause of the Big Bang.quote:
Unless pressed, then the eternal first cause must be matter in one form or another.
Liar.quote:
But how does eternal matter exist in a finite universe?
Nobody said that eternal matter exists in this universe.quote:
Just hypothesize about "suspending" "commonsense" and "cause and effect" if for just a moment and alas, after the repeal of time and space, "cause and effect" and "commonsense", if just for flash, the atheistic universe begins to take shape.
This made no sense at all.quote:
Ok, then give me one example of another. I asked you to do this last post and you refused.
Liar. I gave you a few examples.quote:
Yet you continue to offer up nothing in it's place:
Bill: The blue house has two doors.
Dave: Why should I believe that it only has two?
Bill: Ok Dave, if you know of more then show them to me.
Dave: Why should I believe that it only has two?...
And there you repeat the same lie. I gave you examples. You didn't even acknowledge them.quote:
Ok Dave, who was the first cause of your "non-eternal" first cause of the universe? How can you even have a "non-eternal" first cause of the universe? I think you just made that term up?
You're just blind. If our scientists, someday, are able to create a whole new universe (as is suggested may be possible), then that new universe will have a non-eternal cause (people in this universe). Since we cannot know what caused the Big Bang, then it's possible that it was caused by non-eternal beings in a "previous" universe.
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 10:16:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
For the atheist to say we don't know but we know it ain't a god is just as juvenile.
Who said that here? You shouldn't make things up...*sigh* |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 10:25:05 [Permalink]
|
In Bills words:
quote:
Let's sum up what we have covered so far.
To summarize: The skeptics say “I don't know” based on the fact that there are limitations (from less then the first second after the big bang and before the big bang) on what we can observe. We do know that Newtonian physics breaks down at the quantum level and so we are forced to consider factors unknown to us at this time. There is no way to know what matter existed before the big bang, if any, (a collapsed universe perhaps?) because there is a wall beyond which we can't see. We can't see before time, and we are honest enough to say so. All, including the possibility of a creator, is speculation and hypothesis and much of that is so far not falsifiable.
Bil says God did it… Apparently God did everything that we haven't figured out yet. Mysteries are not acceptable to Bill. Science is an atheistic pursuit with the goal of proving there is no God…
Edited
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 10:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
How do you know common sense is void if you admittedly no nothing about before the big bang? Or do you base this off of your philosophy on what preceded the BB?
I don't know that common sense is "void" prior to the Big Bang, I was simply pointing out that your assertion that throwing out common sense is somehow "wrong" is, itself, wrong because we know of plenty of situation in which common sense is wrong.quote:
Including a deity then right? It not what are you basing that on if you cannot know for sure? Let me guess, your atheistic philosophy?
What the hell are you talking about?quote:
See, but the last time I looked eternal existence was a attribute of deity.
When and where did you look? I see a tremendously wide variety of deities, some of whom are described as living forever, and others who aren't.quote:
Because a deity, by definition, is eternal.
Well, as far as I can tell, that is a definition of "deity" which you have invented. Heracles certainly has all the attributes of a deity, despite being born mortal.quote:
Your eternal matter is based on your philosophy of what might have happened previous to the big bang and nothing else.
Liar.quote:
Of coarse you put eternal matter in this group as well, right?
I don't know of any "eternal matter."quote:
Claiming it exists in speculative others is pure philosophy.
As is claiming God exists.quote:
Fair enough, but that makes the atheistic rubber stamp of a high probability of no god/deity just as juvenile.
Atheists don't tend to base their conclusions of the absence of a god on a guess about the origins of the universe. Instead, they tend to base their conclusions on the lack of evidence for any god's existence, despite people searching for such evidence for thousands of years.quote:
For the atheist to say we don't know but we know it ain't a god is just as juvenile.
I think you're lying that anyone has said that, just as you've lied about what I've said. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
