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.
It's pretty cowardly of you not to say what you think he was saying, bro. I'm sure you'd be quick to say what you thought he was saying if what you thought he was saying was in agreement with you.He sounds a lot like you so I'm sure you can explain him better than me. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with either of you.
That's a brilliant rebuttal. Did you learn that tactic in free play or recess?So is your philospohy, though.
How is it not? Is that not proof of existence before space and time were created? Did this potential just pop into existence when space and time did?There was, by definition, the potential, in the past, for everything which exists today to exist. Not a very useful concept though.
You seem confused. Nobody has to do any work to rebut an unevidenced and unargued claim.That's a brilliant rebuttal.
It most certainly is based upon logic and it was informed by science. There is nothing arbitrary about it. The universe was caused. Nothing arbitrary there. Is the universe not evidence? Yes, so no "no evidence" there. Based upon logic the first cause must by necessity be uncaused. So nothing arbitrary there either. Just good old fashioned simple logic.And that is a perfectly fine belief but it is not based on logic or science, it is based on faith. You arbitrarily picked what is caused and what is not caused as an act of faith since there is no evidence for either.
No! Science provides us with the only theories we have so far outside of space and time.Science is useless outside of space and time.
Where do you believe your brilliant response falls on this matrix, bubba?You seem confused. Nobody has to do any work to rebut an unevidenced and unargued claim.
"Nuh uh" suffices fully. And guess what? That's your fault for making the claim.
As much as you love the attention, that isn't how reason or the world works.
No idea what you are trying to say. Are you agreeing or disagreeing that science is useless outside of space and time?No! Science provides us with the only theories we have so far outside of space and time.
While religious belief is stalled somewhere between the Genesis hoax and evolution on our earth.
I'm saying that religions have contributed nothing on our understanding of space and time.No idea what you are trying to say. Are you agreeing or disagreeing that science is useless outside of space and time?
Good thing I don't use religion in my science, huh? I just wish you would learn some science.I'm saying that religions have contributed nothing on our understanding of space and time.
While Hawking and Penrose have contributed most of what we know so far.
As I suggested, the CC is stalled somewhere between the Genesis malarkey and an acceptance of Darwinian evolution.
As your church recommends, believe whatever you like and you won't run into any trouble from us!
I just finished objecting to your use of religion in your science. You suggest that religions have contributed to our understanding outside of space and time, and that science doesn't and can't.Good thing I don't use religion in my science, huh? I just wish you would learn some science.
There is nothing outside of space and time. We can speculate but we do it trapped in space and time.It's philosophy which is the only thing available to us outside of space and time. Science is useless outside of space and time. But we can use science for events inside of space and time which is what I have done and you haven't.
If he agreed with me I'd understand him. Since he doesn't it would be arrogant of me to put my words in his mouth.It's pretty cowardly of you not to say what you think he was saying, bro. I'm sure you'd be quick to say what you thought he was saying if what you thought he was saying was in agreement with you.
Ah, the arrogance of the faithful thinking they win every argument because they see a greater reality.The reality is the arrogance of atheists who think they are intellectually superior to people of faith is not deserved. But you guys keep riding on your high horses and I'll keep knocking you off.
Your logic is flawed. You don't know the universe was caused. It may have always existed in some form. You also know nothing about your "first cause" so you arbitrarily give it intelligence.It most certainly is based upon logic and it was informed by science. There is nothing arbitrary about it. The universe was caused. Nothing arbitrary there. Is the universe not evidence? Yes, so no "no evidence" there. Based upon logic the first cause must by necessity be uncaused. So nothing arbitrary there either. Just good old fashioned simple logic.
I'm happy to say I don't know everything and don't feel the need to invent.I'm pretty sure my logic compares much more favorably to your logic because you don't even make an attempt. It seems the best you can do is to throw rocks at the people who do. I would be more than happy to throw your rocks if you will present your logic for nothingness.
There's no religion in my science. Just because you say there is doesn't make it so.I just finished objecting to your use of religion in your science.
You suggest that religions have contributed to our understanding outside of space and time, and that science doesn't and can't.
I think a better way of saying that is what exists outside of space and time is undefined.There is nothing outside of space and time.
Which is why that is the realm of philosophy and not science. It can't be tested.We can speculate but we do it trapped in space and time.
Where does your unevidenced and unargued claim fall?
