Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

[edthecynic]

Speak for yourself!

Maybe you will believe Alan Guth himself. At the 0:42 minute mark Alan Guth says, "but still there would be a beginning at some place" . At the 3:24 minute Alan Guth says, "it is eternal into the future, but not eternal into the past."

What are you going to say now, dumbass, that Alan Guth was lying? That I twisted his words?

Gee, why am I not surprised that your "quote" is not an exact quote and you left out something? The unproven assumption "we do not think it is" you replaced with the definitive "not." He thinks it is a reasonable assumption, but in the beginning of the video he also said there was most likely a prehistory to the big bang and that there was SOMETHING he called "repulsive gravity MATERIAL," not nothing, in that prehistory that had a beginning someplace, but again that is an unproven assumption.

But it does definitively behead your claim that it is impossible for the universe to be eternal. You made that claim many times and in different ways, the SLoT, the heat death, and the cycle keeps taking longer and longer, etc.

Fuck. You are kidding me. I just proved that your understanding of what Alan Guth meant by an eternal universe was wrong and this is your response.

Let me be clear here, Alan Guth believes that the universe is not eternal going backwards but is eternal going forwards. He does not believe that the universe is eternal going backwards like your backwards ass said he did. Now do you understand?

But he does believe the universe came from SOMETHING, not nothing, and that SOMETHING is eternal. The universe in its present form began as SOMETHING in a different form.
As I pointed out, just saying the universe had a beginning does not mean it came from nothing, so the argument has never been whether the universe had a beginning, except in YOUR Straw Man, but whether it began from something or nothing. You need to defend the "nothing" claim of the title of this thread or STFU.

You need to give up. You are just digging a deep hole of stupidity. Yes, Vilenkin already explained this dumbass. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. And Guth explained how all the matter was created exponentially by a quantum fluctuation and the repulsive force of gravity.

I'm tired of your dumb act.
Energy and forces are NOT nothing.

 

[ding]

Maybe you will believe Alan Guth himself. At the 0:42 minute mark Alan Guth says, "but still there would be a beginning at some place" . At the 3:24 minute Alan Guth says, "it is eternal into the future, but not eternal into the past."

What are you going to say now, dumbass, that Alan Guth was lying? That I twisted his words?

Gee, why am I not surprised that your "quote" is not an exact quote and you left out something? The unproven assumption "we do not think it is" you replaced with the definitive "not." He thinks it is a reasonable assumption, but in the beginning of the video he also said there was most likely a prehistory to the big bang and that there was SOMETHING he called "repulsive gravity MATERIAL," not nothing, in that prehistory that had a beginning someplace, but again that is an unproven assumption.

But it does definitively behead your claim that it is impossible for the universe to be eternal. You made that claim many times and in different ways, the SLoT, the heat death, and the cycle keeps taking longer and longer, etc.

Fuck. You are kidding me. I just proved that your understanding of what Alan Guth meant by an eternal universe was wrong and this is your response.

Let me be clear here, Alan Guth believes that the universe is not eternal going backwards but is eternal going forwards. He does not believe that the universe is eternal going backwards like your backwards ass said he did. Now do you understand?

But he does believe the universe came from SOMETHING, not nothing, and that SOMETHING is eternal. The universe in its present form began as SOMETHING in a different form.
As I pointed out, just saying the universe had a beginning does not mean it came from nothing, so the argument has never been whether the universe had a beginning, except in YOUR Straw Man, but whether it began from something or nothing. You need to defend the "nothing" claim of the title of this thread or STFU.

You need to give up. You are just digging a deep hole of stupidity. Yes, Vilenkin already explained this dumbass. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. And Guth explained how all the matter was created exponentially by a quantum fluctuation and the repulsive force of gravity.

I'm tired of your dumb act.
Energy and forces are NOT nothing.

That's pretty rich coming from the moron who has been proven to be wrong about everything. No one can be that stupid. Which means you are just dishonest.

 

[Mudda]

That's pretty rich coming from the moron who has been proven to be wrong about everything. No one can be that stupid. Which means you are just dishonest.

Says the guy who never was able to prove anything he claimed. So what are you stupid or dishonest?

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, why am I not surprised that your "quote" is not an exact quote and you left out something? The unproven assumption "we do not think it is" you replaced with the definitive "not." He thinks it is a reasonable assumption, but in the beginning of the video he also said there was most likely a prehistory to the big bang and that there was SOMETHING he called "repulsive gravity MATERIAL," not nothing, in that prehistory that had a beginning someplace, but again that is an unproven assumption.

But it does definitively behead your claim that it is impossible for the universe to be eternal. You made that claim many times and in different ways, the SLoT, the heat death, and the cycle keeps taking longer and longer, etc.

Fuck. You are kidding me. I just proved that your understanding of what Alan Guth meant by an eternal universe was wrong and this is your response.

Let me be clear here, Alan Guth believes that the universe is not eternal going backwards but is eternal going forwards. He does not believe that the universe is eternal going backwards like your backwards ass said he did. Now do you understand?

But he does believe the universe came from SOMETHING, not nothing, and that SOMETHING is eternal. The universe in its present form began as SOMETHING in a different form.
As I pointed out, just saying the universe had a beginning does not mean it came from nothing, so the argument has never been whether the universe had a beginning, except in YOUR Straw Man, but whether it began from something or nothing. You need to defend the "nothing" claim of the title of this thread or STFU.

You need to give up. You are just digging a deep hole of stupidity. Yes, Vilenkin already explained this dumbass. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. And Guth explained how all the matter was created exponentially by a quantum fluctuation and the repulsive force of gravity.

I'm tired of your dumb act.
Energy and forces are NOT nothing.

That's pretty rich coming from the moron who has been proven to be wrong about everything. No one can be that stupid. Which means you are just dishonest.

Projection.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

"it is eternal into the future, but not eternal into the past."

someone does not know the meaning of eternal ...

the statement does not take into consideration the transformation from energy to matter to energy in perpetuity.

has bing abandoned the 6K year universe or not ... .

 

[ding]

Fuck. You are kidding me. I just proved that your understanding of what Alan Guth meant by an eternal universe was wrong and this is your response.

Let me be clear here, Alan Guth believes that the universe is not eternal going backwards but is eternal going forwards. He does not believe that the universe is eternal going backwards like your backwards ass said he did. Now do you understand?

But he does believe the universe came from SOMETHING, not nothing, and that SOMETHING is eternal. The universe in its present form began as SOMETHING in a different form.
As I pointed out, just saying the universe had a beginning does not mean it came from nothing, so the argument has never been whether the universe had a beginning, except in YOUR Straw Man, but whether it began from something or nothing. You need to defend the "nothing" claim of the title of this thread or STFU.

You need to give up. You are just digging a deep hole of stupidity. Yes, Vilenkin already explained this dumbass. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. And Guth explained how all the matter was created exponentially by a quantum fluctuation and the repulsive force of gravity.

I'm tired of your dumb act.
Energy and forces are NOT nothing.

That's pretty rich coming from the moron who has been proven to be wrong about everything. No one can be that stupid. Which means you are just dishonest.

Projection.

No, not projection, reality. You couldn't even acknowledge your error about what Guth meant by an eternal universe even after you heard him explain it in his own words.

 

[oldfart]

"A life well lived is purpose enough."

 

[ding]

"A life well lived is purpose enough."

What is a life well lived?

 

[edthecynic]

But he does believe the universe came from SOMETHING, not nothing, and that SOMETHING is eternal. The universe in its present form began as SOMETHING in a different form.
As I pointed out, just saying the universe had a beginning does not mean it came from nothing, so the argument has never been whether the universe had a beginning, except in YOUR Straw Man, but whether it began from something or nothing. You need to defend the "nothing" claim of the title of this thread or STFU.

You need to give up. You are just digging a deep hole of stupidity. Yes, Vilenkin already explained this dumbass. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. And Guth explained how all the matter was created exponentially by a quantum fluctuation and the repulsive force of gravity.

I'm tired of your dumb act.
Energy and forces are NOT nothing.

That's pretty rich coming from the moron who has been proven to be wrong about everything. No one can be that stupid. Which means you are just dishonest.

Projection.

No, not projection, reality. You couldn't even acknowledge your error about what Guth meant by an eternal universe even after you heard him explain it in his own words.

More projection.

 

[edthecynic]

"A life well lived is purpose enough."

What is a life well lived?

Well, obviously not yours or you would know!

 

[ding]

"A life well lived is purpose enough."

What is a life well lived?

Well, obviously not yours or you would know!

I am more than happy for you to believe that about me, brother. It is no skin off of my teeth.

 

[edthecynic]

"A life well lived is purpose enough."

What is a life well lived?

Well, obviously not yours or you would know!

I am more than happy for you to believe that about me, brother. It is no skin off of my teeth.

Glad to have brightened your empty life, even if only a little.

 

[ding]

"A life well lived is purpose enough."

What is a life well lived?

Well, obviously not yours or you would know!

I am more than happy for you to believe that about me, brother. It is no skin off of my teeth.

Glad to have brightened your empty life, even if only a little.

Bless your heart.

 

[BreezeWood]

"A life well lived is purpose enough."

What is a life well lived?

.

entitled for Judgement ...

 

[RWS]

The Pope is calling you out ding.... Listen to what he says.

Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com


I've only been saying the same thing for years!

 

[ding]

The Pope is calling you out ding.... Listen to what he says.

Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com


I've only been saying the same thing for years!

Bad Catholics are effectively atheists, but they are not filthy militant atheists, lol.

 

[hobelim]

The Pope is calling you out ding.... Listen to what he says.

Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com


I've only been saying the same thing for years!

Yeah, maybe so, but you weren't wearing a pointy hat....

Besides, the Pope, who eats the flesh of God in the form of a man made cracker, saying something intelligent is as astonishing as a leviathan from the bottom of the sea flopping around on the the deck of a boat and singing the star spangled banner at the feet of hungry fishermen. .

 

[ding]

The Pope is calling you out ding.... Listen to what he says.

Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com


I've only been saying the same thing for years!

Yeah, maybe so, but you weren't wearing a pointy hat....

Besides, the Pope, who eats the flesh of God in the form of a man made cracker, saying something intelligent is as astonishing as a leviathan from the bottom of the sea flopping around on the the deck of a boat and singing the star spangled banner at the feet of hungry fishermen. .

You wouldn't be an english teacher per chance, lol?

 

[hobelim]

The Pope is calling you out ding.... Listen to what he says.

Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com


I've only been saying the same thing for years!

Yeah, maybe so, but you weren't wearing a pointy hat....

Besides, the Pope, who eats the flesh of God in the form of a man made cracker, saying something intelligent is as astonishing as a leviathan from the bottom of the sea flopping around on the the deck of a boat and singing the star spangled banner at the feet of hungry fishermen. .

You wouldn't be an english teacher per chance, lol?

No, I am teaching people how to become immune to the poison of serpents.

You might not realize this but the antidote is very effective, except on serpents. You know, the ones who have made evil a deliberate choice.


You should probably start to look for another hobby.

Have you ever considered acting? Maybe film or theater? Don't bother, you suck at it.


Free free to check for spelling or punctuation errors. lol...

 

[ding]

The Pope is calling you out ding.... Listen to what he says.

Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com


I've only been saying the same thing for years!

Yeah, maybe so, but you weren't wearing a pointy hat....

Besides, the Pope, who eats the flesh of God in the form of a man made cracker, saying something intelligent is as astonishing as a leviathan from the bottom of the sea flopping around on the the deck of a boat and singing the star spangled banner at the feet of hungry fishermen. .

You wouldn't be an english teacher per chance, lol?

No, I am teaching people how to become immune to the poison of serpents.

You might not realize this but the antidote is very effective, except on serpents. You know, the ones who have made evil a deliberate choice.


You should probably start to look for another hobby.

Have you ever considered acting? Maybe film or theater? Don't bother, you suck at it.

But I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me, Martha!