Afterlife….How About For You?

[ding]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

It's a measurement error of light across deep space. Acceleration hasn't changed.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

 

[ding]

They can literally account for all the matter in the universe using microwave radiation and sub atomic particle symmetry.

 

[Hollie]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

The universe beginning “from nothing” with the Big Bang is a common misconception.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

The universe beginning “from nothing” with the Big Bang is a common misconception.

Wrong. Do you even SLoT?

 

[ding]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

Only when a moron claims it makes up 95% of the universe.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

Only when a moron claims it makes up 95% of the universe.

So the people who won the Nobel Prize for postulating the existence of something else in the universe were morons but you aren't a thick headed inflexible thinker

Nobel Prize – Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity

Posts about Nobel Prize written by darkmatterdarkenergy

darkmatterdarkenergy.com

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

 

[ding]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

Only when a moron claims it makes up 95% of the universe.

So the people who won the Nobel Prize for postulating the existence of something else in the universe were morons but you aren't a thick headed inflexible thinker

Nobel Prize – Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity

Posts about Nobel Prize written by darkmatterdarkenergy

darkmatterdarkenergy.com

only if I claimed that 95% of something was made up of something no one had ever seen or measured or captured or could explain where it came from or how it got there.

Then you would be correct.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Afterlife….How About For You?
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: While I generally like a majority of what you have to say, on this issue, you are wrong.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

(COMMENT)

Science does not know how the "ability to learn" actually works. It is based on an unknown function biochemical and electrical network of the brain. Science knows what frameworks of the brain are generally responsible for certain sensory aspects. But science does not know if the perception of color (as an example) is interpreted the same way by everyone.

Similarly, science can test knowledge; but does not actually know what it means to know something.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Afterlife….How About For You?
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: While I generally like a majority of what you have to say, on this issue, you are wrong.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

(COMMENT)

Science does not know how the "ability to learn" actually works. It is based on an unknown function biochemical and electrical network of the brain. Science knows what frameworks of the brain are generally responsible for certain sensory aspects. But science does not know if the perception of color (as an example) is interpreted the same way by everyone.

Similarly, science can test knowledge; but does not actually know what it means to know something.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment. But science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. As such the more we observe, study and test the more we learn. The more we learn the greater the knowledge base becomes. I think in terms of evolution of space and time. As such consciousness is is it’s own evolutionary stage. Just as every evolutionary stage before it, when they reached their practically complete state a new leap or stage in the evolution of space and time was made.

Why is it so far fetched to believe consciousness would be any different.

Therefore, I believe our capacity to learn is only limited by us. Such that as long as we continue to objectively study the material world we will continue to discover and learn more.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

Only when a moron claims it makes up 95% of the universe.

So the people who won the Nobel Prize for postulating the existence of something else in the universe were morons but you aren't a thick headed inflexible thinker

Nobel Prize – Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity

Posts about Nobel Prize written by darkmatterdarkenergy

darkmatterdarkenergy.com

only if I claimed that 95% of something was made up of something no one had ever seen or measured or captured or could explain where it came from or how it got there.

Then you would be correct.

So you know more than the 2011 Nobel Prize winners

SUURRRRRRRE

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

 

[ding]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

Only when a moron claims it makes up 95% of the universe.

So the people who won the Nobel Prize for postulating the existence of something else in the universe were morons but you aren't a thick headed inflexible thinker

Nobel Prize – Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity

Posts about Nobel Prize written by darkmatterdarkenergy

darkmatterdarkenergy.com

only if I claimed that 95% of something was made up of something no one had ever seen or measured or captured or could explain where it came from or how it got there.

Then you would be correct.

So you know more than the 2011 Nobel Prize winners

SUURRRRRRRE

Just you.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

Only when a moron claims it makes up 95% of the universe.

So the people who won the Nobel Prize for postulating the existence of something else in the universe were morons but you aren't a thick headed inflexible thinker

Nobel Prize – Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity

Posts about Nobel Prize written by darkmatterdarkenergy

darkmatterdarkenergy.com

only if I claimed that 95% of something was made up of something no one had ever seen or measured or captured or could explain where it came from or how it got there.

Then you would be correct.

So you know more than the 2011 Nobel Prize winners

SUURRRRRRRE

Just you.

Keep telling yourself that