Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But I did. See.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?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.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
You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.
So? What does that have to do with it?It is a closed system.And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?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.Like what?
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.
But I did. See.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?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.
You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.
So? What does that have to do with it?It is a closed system.And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?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.
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.
Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.
Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.But I did. See.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?
You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.
So? What does that have to do with it?It is a closed system.And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?
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.
Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.
No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.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.
So? What does that have to do with it?It is a closed system.
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.
Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.
No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
We don't know much of anything about what's outside our universe. Asking about that gets an, "I don't know."It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.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.You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.
So? What does that have to do with it?
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.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.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.
So? What does that have to do with it?It is a closed system.
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.
Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.
No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.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.You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.
So? What does that have to do with it?
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.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
Not my experiments. Another person who doesn't bother reading links that don't conform to his preconceived notions, I see.If only more people would pay attention to your groundbreaking experiments with quantum physics. As if you even know what that means. Fortunately you have complete faith in the possibilities of your theories.....no matter how little tangible evidence there might be. Your logic represents quite an impressive evolution of human thought.Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.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.You did what? You certainly didn't learn anything. All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.
So? What does that have to do with it?
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.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
Are you a Mormon?.It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.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 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.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.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 other things do you believe in that science can't explain?
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.
I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.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?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 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.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.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.Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.
What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?
I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclision.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?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 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.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.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 other things do you believe in that science can't explain?
It's a yes/no proposition, whether there's an external force or not. That's 50/50. I guess you could look at it and say there's a billion different ways the universe could have come into being, so it's one in a billion chance? I dunno, lol. It seems like it's both, lol.I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclision.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?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 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.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?
You're not giving the notion an open mind you're saying there's an equal chance it exists as opposed to not.
None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.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.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
.Are you a Mormon?.It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.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 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.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?
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.
Are you a Mormon?
.Are you a Mormon?.It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.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 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.
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.
Are you a Mormon?
no, I'm in agreement with Mudda, to be religious an individual like Columbus must cross the void to find the land on the other side, reading a book will not do that and will leave its adherent on the shore their ship never leaving the harbor. as why a spoken religion is the only means to discovering the truth for the reason to advance as a Spirit to the Everlasting.
.
Sillyboob, you want to be an agnostic. It's cool, there's room for everyone. And we have good weed.Are you a Mormon?.It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.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.
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.
Are you a Mormon?
no, I'm in agreement with Mudda, to be religious an individual like Columbus must cross the void to find the land on the other side, reading a book will not do that and will leave its adherent on the shore their ship never leaving the harbor. as why a spoken religion is the only means to discovering the truth for the reason to advance as a Spirit to the Everlasting.
.
Well what if you launch your ship, circle the world 300 times and don't find land? Is there an equal probability that land is out there or do you eventually give up? Do the odds go down the longer you look unsuccessfully? Or if you find nothing do you continue to have blind faith despite the evidence? What made you think there was land out there in the first place? What makes you think a god exists in the first place?
And theorizing that there are other lands out there beyond ours is not an extraordinary claim. We aren't talking about invisible creators that created a heaven for us after we die and cares about us.
Lastly, what the fuck did you just say? I'm re reading it and what the fuck??? Are you speaking in tongues?
Sillyboob, you want to be an agnostic. It's cool, there's room for everyone. And we have good weed.Are you a Mormon?.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.
Are you a Mormon?
no, I'm in agreement with Mudda, to be religious an individual like Columbus must cross the void to find the land on the other side, reading a book will not do that and will leave its adherent on the shore their ship never leaving the harbor. as why a spoken religion is the only means to discovering the truth for the reason to advance as a Spirit to the Everlasting.
.
Well what if you launch your ship, circle the world 300 times and don't find land? Is there an equal probability that land is out there or do you eventually give up? Do the odds go down the longer you look unsuccessfully? Or if you find nothing do you continue to have blind faith despite the evidence? What made you think there was land out there in the first place? What makes you think a god exists in the first place?
And theorizing that there are other lands out there beyond ours is not an extraordinary claim. We aren't talking about invisible creators that created a heaven for us after we die and cares about us.
Lastly, what the fuck did you just say? I'm re reading it and what the fuck??? Are you speaking in tongues?
There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.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?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 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.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.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 other things do you believe in that science can't explain?
So you agree that there's no proof either way but you're leaning towards one side because their lack of proof is more convincing than the other side's lack of proof? Ya, you'll need big balls to float in that huge lake of nonsense.Sillyboob, you want to be an agnostic. It's cool, there's room for everyone. And we have good weed.Are you a Mormon?.
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.
Are you a Mormon?
no, I'm in agreement with Mudda, to be religious an individual like Columbus must cross the void to find the land on the other side, reading a book will not do that and will leave its adherent on the shore their ship never leaving the harbor. as why a spoken religion is the only means to discovering the truth for the reason to advance as a Spirit to the Everlasting.
.
Well what if you launch your ship, circle the world 300 times and don't find land? Is there an equal probability that land is out there or do you eventually give up? Do the odds go down the longer you look unsuccessfully? Or if you find nothing do you continue to have blind faith despite the evidence? What made you think there was land out there in the first place? What makes you think a god exists in the first place?
And theorizing that there are other lands out there beyond ours is not an extraordinary claim. We aren't talking about invisible creators that created a heaven for us after we die and cares about us.
Lastly, what the fuck did you just say? I'm re reading it and what the fuck??? Are you speaking in tongues?
I'm in! LOL.
But I already told you I'm an agnostic. An agnostic atheist. See I lean towards disbelief. Everyone leans one way or the other. You just don't have the balls to lean. Grow a pair.
It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning. Fascinating. You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
