God is the only rational explanation for the existence of the universe.

[sealybobo]

Think about it. Nothing physical can create itself. This is a scientific fact. So if the universe wasn't created, then why does it exist? The only thing that makes sense is that it was created.

God doesn’t explain anything. It only opens you up to a bunch of questions you can’t answer. Who is god and can you prove it exists? If you can’t then you haven’t explained anything.

 

[sealybobo]

No it isn't. all you are doing is making a circular argument.

Well, yours is a circular rebuttal....big whoop

In what way, exactly? Let's hear it.

His argument is circular, in that his only premise is that nothing physical an be created without a god. His conclusion is that, therefore, god created everything.

This is not an error that a grown man who can feed himself should make.

It assumes everyone in the room believes in god

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then there would be no light.

By what argument?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It isn't a revealed religion.

Right, which kind of makes it a lot more honest and believable, when you think about it.

 

[ding]

Then there would be no light.

By what argument?

All the stars would have exhausted their rebirth and death cycles. Everything would be dark and there would be no heat. It doesn't matter how big the universe got.

 

[ding]

It isn't a revealed religion.

Right, which kind of makes it a lot more honest and believable, when you think about it.

Like you with your argument that an infinite size universe would not reach equilibrium over an infinite life?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All the stars would have exhausted their rebirth and death cycles. Everything would be dark and there would be no heat. It doesn't matter how big the universe got.

Not so, in an infinite universe. An infinite universe can even be a contracting universe. And in this infinite universe, contracting or otherwise, you will always be able to find more hydrogen. You will never run out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Like you with your argument that an infinite size universe would not reach equilibrium over an infinite life?

No, silly... more honest and believable, as it doesn't rely wholly on some bullshit "divine revelation", which... sorry dude... is fucking absurd. And you agree with me in ALL cases... save for one. You know that is true. So let's not even go down that road, because you're just going to get all grumpy.

 

[ding]

All the stars would have exhausted their rebirth and death cycles. Everything would be dark and there would be no heat. It doesn't matter how big the universe got.

Not so, in an infinite universe. An infinite universe can even be a contracting universe. And in this infinite universe, contracting or otherwise, you will always be able to find more hydrogen. You will never run out.

You don't seem to understand. It doesn't matter if it contracts. Eventually it all reaches thermal equilibrium.

For every mass to energy or energy to mass transfer there is a loss of usable energy. A cost of the transaction. This is what entropy is. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Entropy is reason there can never be such thing as perpetual motion.

 

[ding]

Like you with your argument that an infinite size universe would not reach equilibrium over an infinite life?

No, silly... more honest and believable, as it doesn't rely wholly on some bullshit "divine revelation", which... sorry dude... is fucking absurd. And you agree with me in ALL cases... save for one. You know that is true. So let's not even go down that road, because you're just going to get all grumpy.

Your lack of knowledge of science is getting exposed here, bro.

 

[ding]

No it isn't. all you are doing is making a circular argument.

Well, yours is a circular rebuttal....big whoop

In what way, exactly? Let's hear it.

His argument is circular, in that his only premise is that nothing physical an be created without a god. His conclusion is that, therefore, god created everything.

This is not an error that a grown man who can feed himself should make.

It assumes everyone in the room believes in god

Would you mind settling this?

If someone were to ask you about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, would you use the bullshit he is writing to explain it or the bullshit I am writing to explain it?

TIA

 

[Czernobog]

It says exactly what I think it does. A direct quote from the paper: "The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe."

It presents a big bang model without the singularity. It existed forever as quantum potential before “collapsing” into the hot dense state and then expanding and cooling. It makes no claim that it is cyclical. Or that space and time existed forever. It claims that quantum potential existed forever. It isn't a cyclical model. It is an inflationary model.

So, my terms were off. The point is it is a continually expanding, and contracting universe without the need to God.

Way off. His model still had us in a hot dense state and then expanding and cooling. His quantum universe was forever. But the universe we live in where there is matter and energy, started in a hot dense state and then began to expand and cool immediately and that was ~14 billion years ago.

And?

And he wasn't talking about an infinite amount of time once matter and energy occupied his quantum universe that had been existing forever.

He is still using Freidman's equations for crying out loud. They still show that the so called quantum universe - that had been existing forever - started expanding and cooling when matter and energy were added to it and created space and time. And that was 14 billion years ago.

Which implies what, in your mind? I'm not seeing your "outside force" being employed anywhere in the Ali/Das model.

 

[ding]

It presents a big bang model without the singularity. It existed forever as quantum potential before “collapsing” into the hot dense state and then expanding and cooling. It makes no claim that it is cyclical. Or that space and time existed forever. It claims that quantum potential existed forever. It isn't a cyclical model. It is an inflationary model.

So, my terms were off. The point is it is a continually expanding, and contracting universe without the need to God.

Way off. His model still had us in a hot dense state and then expanding and cooling. His quantum universe was forever. But the universe we live in where there is matter and energy, started in a hot dense state and then began to expand and cool immediately and that was ~14 billion years ago.

And?

And he wasn't talking about an infinite amount of time once matter and energy occupied his quantum universe that had been existing forever.

He is still using Freidman's equations for crying out loud. They still show that the so called quantum universe - that had been existing forever - started expanding and cooling when matter and energy were added to it and created space and time. And that was 14 billion years ago.

Which implies what, in your mind? I'm not seeing your "outside force" being employed anywhere in the Ali/Das model.

All they did was tweak Freidman's solutions to Einsteins General Theory of Realativity to avoid a singularity. Ali/Das's model still starts with a quantum event 14 billion years ago, prior to that event there was no matter or energy present. Only what he calls a quantum universe that he says has always been there forever. The matter and energy that we observe today were not present forever. His model still starts with a hot dense universe that expands and cools. All he did was a math trick and you think that matter and energy defied the second law of thermodynamics. Matter and energy can not last forever with eventually reaching a thermal equilibrium.

 

[G.T.]

ding still hasnt done the counter research on his 2nd law gibberish? tsk tsk.

trolling 101

 

[ding]

ding still hasnt done the counter research on his 2nd law gibberish? tsk tsk.

trolling 101

Please do school me on it, GT. I love learning new things.

 

[G.T.]

ding still hasnt done the counter research on his 2nd law gibberish? tsk tsk.

trolling 101

Please do school me on it, GT. I love learning new things.

Id totally love to do that if you were looking for knowledge, in good faith. Instead, Id refer you to google cuz your google fu needs repair.

That there are 3 with a possibly 4th answer to the problem of the 2nd law that you REPEATEDLY use, as though theres no counter expl.(as do all of the more either dishonest or uninformed christian apologetics ((theres even a script for yall!!! google it!!)), when there ARE counter explanations as of yet not invalidated...... I have to assume your google fu skills are broken to maintain that you're such a good and honest researcher.

So, Ill assume that

 

[ding]

ding still hasnt done the counter research on his 2nd law gibberish? tsk tsk.

trolling 101

Please do school me on it, GT. I love learning new things.

Id totally love to do that if you were looking for knowledge, in good faith. Instead, Id refer you to google cuz your google fu needs repair.

That there are 3 with a possibly 4th answer to the problem of the 2nd law that you REPEATEDLY use, as though theres no counter expl.(as do all of the more either dishonest or uninformed christian apologetics ((theres even a script for yall!!! google it!!)), when there ARE counter explanations as of yet not invalidated...... I have to assume your google fu skills are broken to maintain that you're such a good and honest researcher.

So, Ill assume that

If I was aware of any other possible explanations then I would be able to search for them, GT.

How do you propose I search for that exactly?

 

[ding]

Maybe we should do a bull ring on this topic.

What do you say, GT?

 

[G.T.]

ding still hasnt done the counter research on his 2nd law gibberish? tsk tsk.

trolling 101

Please do school me on it, GT. I love learning new things.

Id totally love to do that if you were looking for knowledge, in good faith. Instead, Id refer you to google cuz your google fu needs repair.

That there are 3 with a possibly 4th answer to the problem of the 2nd law that you REPEATEDLY use, as though theres no counter expl.(as do all of the more either dishonest or uninformed christian apologetics ((theres even a script for yall!!! google it!!)), when there ARE counter explanations as of yet not invalidated...... I have to assume your google fu skills are broken to maintain that you're such a good and honest researcher.

So, Ill assume that

If I was aware of any other possible explanations then I would be able to search for them, GT.

How do you propose I search for that exactly?

Ok, see here we have the tacit admission that the interlocketer never even ATTEMPTED the counter research to the 2nd law which he feels free to whore as proof of something.

THATS amazing. Hell, Id have been a little LESS surprised if you had something off the script to rebuttal the issues, but THIS?

Its why I consider you terrible, terrible..piss poor at reasoning and why Im also totally unsurprised that everything youve said or say regarding the Universe is off of a literal script.

This shits great.

 

[G.T.]

Maybe we should do a bull ring on this topic.

What do you say, GT?

I say that youre a troll that isnt even worth the shit I DO type to you....but trolls are annoying so I sometimes scurry after them.

Plus, who on earth asks for a debate on something theyve ADMITTED to not doing the counter research on?

HILARIOUSSSsssssssss


No, ding. You are a troll.