Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[WillReadmore]

That's wh

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

Sorry for the gross rambling here, but ...

I have a very different idea of what agnosticism means to me.

First, honestly not knowing can't be a sign of arrogance. And, even you point out that we don't have a way of knowing - or at least we don't have a way of proving. We only have the null hypothesis, but that doesn't mean we know.

The problem with "timid" is that it misses where the strength is being applied.

The problem here is that if we can't prove one way or the other whether God exists we need get the heck off of that issue and move on to how we are going to live together as a society with different beliefs. We're not going to write some posts here and kill Christianity, Islam AND Judaism. And, butting heads is NOT how we make progress with humans. So, not butting heads isn't a matter of "timid".

So, where to apply the pressure?

The conversation needs to turn toward what comes after we recognize that we're not going to kill religion - at least not in the next few centuries.

But, I AM ready to be an evangelist, just not one selling that God is a ridiculous concept.

What I care about is that we come to understand the importance and methods of incorporating science in our public policy decision making.

I don't need anyone to believe god is dead in order to make progress on that.

One of the very first steps in that is to demonstrate that religion and science are NOT opposing forces. Even the Pope points out that science and religion are different "realms". We need to see how that works.

I think there is a distance to go on this, as I'm sure you will agree that a lot of people don't even know what science IS.

Today, we have congressmen who actively oppose science!! They back the anti-vaccination movement. They support homeopathy. The consider colleges and universities the hot bed of evil - literally!!

Today we have a president elect who very clearly bases decisions in the moment, without any thought of creating a long term policy direction or consulting experts.

Today we have a public that would seemingly have no idea of how to detect whether what they are reading is true.

We aren't going to do well as a nation under these circumstances.

That's why we are preaching rational thought over superstitious.

The difference is that I don't believe we really need to win that argument in order to make the real world difference we need to make.

And, that's good - we are not going to kill religion. We can not prove there is no God. If that were necessary, we would be in trouble.

The saving grace is that we do not need to do that. We can increase the support of the world of religion for pretty much any public policy dirsction without trying to kill religion.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

I believe time existed before our universe but that's unknowable and i believe space stretches infinitely outward far beyond our universe

I'm not so sure about time, as time is rather a human construct to describe the affect on human perception of the period between cause and effect. Would that period exist without human perception? Sure. But the measurement is purely a human construct.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

 

[Mudda]

Wh

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

Why would they be gods?

Not saying they would be, but if you can entertain the possibility of other beings in other universes next to ours...

 

[Mudda]

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Science continuously claims new theories, which are the possibles which are then explored.
But what I'm saying is that we don't know how the universe was made, and discounting an external force can't logically be done at this point in time.

 

[Czernobog]

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

 

[ding]

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

 

[WillReadmore]

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Science continuously claims new theories, which are the possibles which are then explored.
But what I'm saying is that we don't know how the universe was made, and discounting an external force can't logically be done at this point in time.

No, scientific method has a very different definition for 'theory'.

Science starts with hypotheses, not theories. We get to theory only after extensive exploration and testing, mostly focused on proving falsity. It includes repetition of tests by those not involved in the initial testing. It includes others attempting to prove falsity by other means. It 8nvolves review by experts in the field.

Theory is the very best understanding that science has to offer after extensive analysis.

Plus, science never gives up in its attempt to prove falsity. We laud those who prove falsity. Think of Einstein, well known as the one who blew away the results of mainstream physicists of his day. Yet, we still have many groups testing the limits of his progress.

The result is that mistakes get found and corrected.

Humans can not do better than that, because we are not all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect-reasoning beings.

 

[Czernobog]

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

 

[sealybobo]

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.

We very much doubt it

 

[ding]

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

 

[WillReadmore]

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

Like what?

 

[ding]

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

Like what?

Like the need to invent dilution which still fails because if it were infinite acting it would be infinite now and no amount of dilution would stave off the ultimate loss of all usable energy in the closed system. And if it were not infinite acting at this point then we are right back to square one with a beginning. There is no path for an infinite acting cyclical universe that did not have a beginning.

 

[Czernobog]

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

No they don't. But, of course you won't take the time to do the very thing you accused me of, because actually learning something mnew might force you to have to revise your irrational positi9on, and we can't have that, now, can we?

 

[ding]

I did not choose it to skew the results. I chose it because it was the only path available. How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?

All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



see 2:56

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

No thery don't. But, of course you won't take the time to do the very thing you accused me of, because actually learning something mnew might force you to have to revise your irrational positi9on, and we can't have that, now, can we?

But I did. See.

 

[Czernobog]

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

Like what?

Like the need to invent dilution which still fails because if it were infinite acting it would be infinite now and no amount of dilution would stave off the ultimate loss of all usable energy in the closed system. And if it were not infinite acting at this point then we are right back to square one with a beginning. There is no path for an infinite acting cyclical universe that did not have a beginning.

And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?

 

[ding]

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

Like what?

Like the need to invent dilution which still fails because if it were infinite acting it would be infinite now and no amount of dilution would stave off the ultimate loss of all usable energy in the closed system. And if it were not infinite acting at this point then we are right back to square one with a beginning. There is no path for an infinite acting cyclical universe that did not have a beginning.

And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?

It is a closed system.

 

[Czernobog]

And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration? By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken. otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer. I mean, that's fine. You can do that. Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

No thery don't. But, of course you won't take the time to do the very thing you accused me of, because actually learning something mnew might force you to have to revise your irrational positi9on, and we can't have that, now, can we?

But I did. See.

You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

Like what?

Like the need to invent dilution which still fails because if it were infinite acting it would be infinite now and no amount of dilution would stave off the ultimate loss of all usable energy in the closed system. And if it were not infinite acting at this point then we are right back to square one with a beginning. There is no path for an infinite acting cyclical universe that did not have a beginning.

And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?

It is a closed system.

So? What does that have to do with it?

 

[BreezeWood]

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.

.

It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.

why would that not be true of every field of study since the beginning of time for one segment "or" the other. or more directly for those who willingly admit indifference.

why is your statement directed at atheism and not similarly at people who willingly accept a forged 4th century book as being an authentic religion as being the same lack of perception. possibly your own perception rather the for an authentic religion you willingly ignore.

 

[ding]

Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.

I did bother to watch it, and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics. In other words, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided, as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

No thery don't. But, of course you won't take the time to do the very thing you accused me of, because actually learning something mnew might force you to have to revise your irrational positi9on, and we can't have that, now, can we?

But I did. See.

You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.

I think I'll go with him. It had everything to do with the your theory. All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.

Like what?

Like the need to invent dilution which still fails because if it were infinite acting it would be infinite now and no amount of dilution would stave off the ultimate loss of all usable energy in the closed system. And if it were not infinite acting at this point then we are right back to square one with a beginning. There is no path for an infinite acting cyclical universe that did not have a beginning.

And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?

It is a closed system.

So? What does that have to do with it?

I've done a lot more than that. It's not like I haven't been looking at this for the past ten years, lol.

The closed system is what makes it finite.

You should actually go and listen to some of his other talks because he makes a compelling case for how a close system can spontaneously appear out of nothing and still satisfy the conservation of energy laws. The other excellent point he makes is that as long as QM don't violate the conservation laws, that any potentiality from QM will have a non-zero probability of occurring and will eventually occur.