Is It Wrong to Think Homosexuality is a Sin?

[G.T.]

No one can know what was before the Big Bang. Only fools pretend to know.

The laws of nature existed before space and time. Space and time were created per the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.



"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential.." Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate

You and your slightly drunk friend in the video don't know what there was in the very beginning.

You can't watch a 6 minute vid in 2 minutes. It's not possible.

Alexander Vilenkin
Director, Institute of Cosmology, and
L. and J. Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science

Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Vilenkin sometimes wears sunglasses when giving seminars which give him a characteristic appearance. Apparently these are because his eyes are sensitive to bright projector lights.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

putting aside that an appeal to an authority doesnt make a good logical argument...

because anyone can appeal to an authority thats an atheist and say herrr deee deerrrr seeeee!!!


but putting that aside, you dont even understand what hes saying.


if the laws of nature are DESCRIPTIVE, they are in effect patterns that nature follows and how we commuicate them..

not literal LAWS in the sense youre implying.

aye yaye yayeee

Anyone who scoffs at accepting knowledge on authority would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as over 90% of what we know has been accepted on authority of others.

So if I post a theoretical physicist that is also an atheist than you no longer believe in God? see how dumb that is dingbat

 

[ding]

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential.." Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate

No one can know what was before the Big Bang. Only fools pretend to know.

The laws of nature existed before space and time. Space and time were created per the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.



"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential.." Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate

You and your slightly drunk friend in the video don't know what there was in the very beginning.

You can't watch a 6 minute vid in 2 minutes. It's not possible.

Alexander Vilenkin
Director, Institute of Cosmology, and
L. and J. Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science

Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Vilenkin sometimes wears sunglasses when giving seminars which give him a characteristic appearance. Apparently these are because his eyes are sensitive to bright projector lights.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

putting aside that an appeal to an authority doesnt make a good logical argument...

because anyone can appeal to an authority thats an atheist and say herrr deee deerrrr seeeee!!!


but putting that aside, you dont even understand what hes saying.


if the laws of nature are DESCRIPTIVE, they are in effect patterns that nature follows and how we commuicate them..

not literal LAWS in the sense youre implying.

aye yaye yayeee

I'm pretty sure I understand what he is saying. Here's his own words on this subject.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

 

[G.T.]

ding, one authority to another - appealing to one guy who believes one thing doesnt make a factual case. aye yaye yaye

 

[ding]

The laws of nature existed before space and time. Space and time were created per the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.



"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential.." Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate

You and your slightly drunk friend in the video don't know what there was in the very beginning.

You can't watch a 6 minute vid in 2 minutes. It's not possible.

Alexander Vilenkin
Director, Institute of Cosmology, and
L. and J. Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science

Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Vilenkin sometimes wears sunglasses when giving seminars which give him a characteristic appearance. Apparently these are because his eyes are sensitive to bright projector lights.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

putting aside that an appeal to an authority doesnt make a good logical argument...

because anyone can appeal to an authority thats an atheist and say herrr deee deerrrr seeeee!!!


but putting that aside, you dont even understand what hes saying.


if the laws of nature are DESCRIPTIVE, they are in effect patterns that nature follows and how we commuicate them..

not literal LAWS in the sense youre implying.

aye yaye yayeee

Anyone who scoffs at accepting knowledge on authority would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as over 90% of what we know has been accepted on authority of others.

So if I post a theoretical physicist that is also an atheist than you no longer believe in God? see how dumb that is dingbat

Except that you'd be skipping steps. I am not posting the beliefs of someone who is making an argument for God. I am posting the scientific beliefs (from two scientists) that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

So if you want to find a scientist who can explain how the laws of nature were not in place before space and time, I'd love to hear about it because I don't believe there is one out there who makes that claim.

 

[ding]

ding, one authority to another - appealing to one guy who believes one thing doesnt make a factual case. aye yaye yaye

Do you know of any scientist who believes that the laws of nature were not in place before space and time were created?

Do you know of anything in the universe which is more complex or advanced than intelligence?

 

[ding]

If you don't know anything which is more complex and advanced than intelligence and consciousness, then intelligence and consciousness is the most advanced and complex thing that you know about in the universe, right?

which means nothing.

knowing about something or not does not speak to its existence or not


dont you understand that?

It means that intelligence and consciousness is the most advanced and complex thing that you know about in the universe.

uh, no it doesnt

it just means "that we currently know of"....not ultimately


thats an assertion, the thing you dont know is a flaw, in your reasoning capability.

Actually that is a fact, GT. You don't know of anything in the universe which is more complex and advanced than intelligence and consciousness.

No you have not rationally proven that it's a fact and I sincerely doubt you're going to and if you think that you've done so then you should start there with fixing your uhhh... reasoning

Of course I have proven it. It is a fact, GT, that you don't know of anything in the universe which is more complex and advanced than intelligence and consciousness. Prove me wrong, name something? You can't.

 

[ding]

ding, one authority to another - appealing to one guy who believes one thing doesnt make a factual case. aye yaye yaye

I'm not the one who is arguing against science, GT, you are. Name one scientist who believes the laws of nature were not in place before space and time were created. You can't.

Name one thing that is more complex than intelligence. You can't.

Yet you persist in arguing about both.

 

[G.T.]

which means nothing.

knowing about something or not does not speak to its existence or not


dont you understand that?

It means that intelligence and consciousness is the most advanced and complex thing that you know about in the universe.

uh, no it doesnt

it just means "that we currently know of"....not ultimately


thats an assertion, the thing you dont know is a flaw, in your reasoning capability.

Actually that is a fact, GT. You don't know of anything in the universe which is more complex and advanced than intelligence and consciousness.

No you have not rationally proven that it's a fact and I sincerely doubt you're going to and if you think that you've done so then you should start there with fixing your uhhh... reasoning

Of course I have proven it. It is a fact, GT, that you don't know of anything in the universe which is more complex and advanced than intelligence and consciousness. Prove me wrong, name something? You can't.

asserting something is not proving it dingbat


the only way you CAN even rationally prove whats the most complex and advanced aspect of this universe, is LITERALLY knowing ALL which exists in it

THATS THE ONLY WAY, goof

 

[G.T.]

ding, one authority to another - appealing to one guy who believes one thing doesnt make a factual case. aye yaye yaye

I'm not the one who is arguing against science, GT, you are. Name one scientist who believes the laws of nature were not in place before space and time were created. You can't.

Name one thing that is more complex than intelligence. You can't.

Yet you persist in arguing about both.

of course i can

in fact, MOST physicists say they DONT KNOW if the laws of physics pre-existed the big bang

MOST!

You dont do much by way of research besides confirmation bias based research, seems like

 

[G.T.]

It's not hard to find one when it's the very first search result in your browser of Millions

 

[Taz]

ding, one authority to another - appealing to one guy who believes one thing doesnt make a factual case. aye yaye yaye

Do you know of any scientist who believes that the laws of nature were not in place before space and time were created?

Do you know of anything in the universe which is more complex or advanced than intelligence?

Quantum physics is more complicated than human intelligence, which is why we don't understand it.

Real scientists don't make dumb claims like pretending to know what was before the BB.

 

[sealybobo]

Funny how 5 out of 6 engineers I know are avid churchgoers.

Wait..make that 6 out of 7.

Right about now, I'm trying to remember who the outlier is. I know it's someone that's not related.

What kind of engineers?

This is called Cognitive Dissonance.

the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

In other words they believe despite the fact there is no facts logic or reason to believe other than wishful thinking.
Ask them how they are able to block science out of their heads and believe in religion.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Funny how 5 out of 6 engineers I know are avid churchgoers.

Wait..make that 6 out of 7.

Right about now, I'm trying to remember who the outlier is. I know it's someone that's not related.

What kind of engineers?

This is called Cognitive Dissonance.

the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

In other words they believe despite the fact there is no facts logic or reason to believe other than wishful thinking.
Ask them how they are able to block science out of their heads and believe in religion.

In other words GFY guy.

Your base is garbage,k?

I just got off the phone with one. You wanna dispute something or something?
Ask me the name of the Ohio Civil Engineer, in the meantime, GFY, k?

 

[BreezeWood]

All we know is that space and time began at the Big Bang. Current evidence points strongly to a "Big Chill" end to the Universe, death by entropy, not a "Big Crunch" AKA Oscillating Universe as previously postulated.

there are other options for compaction, matter in unison will return to its origin, the previous Singularity, without ever changing direction traversing in expansion at a finite angle trajectory, to recompact creating a new Singularity proving BB a cyclical event not related to time.

The evidence at present points to an ever expanding universe unable to collapse and begin anew due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. In short, the jury is still out on how the Universe will end.

.

The evidence at present points to an ever expanding universe unable to collapse and begin anew due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. In short, the jury is still out on how the Universe will end.

that is not true, matter was expelled from a sphere from its center outward / at a finite angle (trajectory) if so it will return in unison to its origin without ever changing direction. it does not collapse but recompacts on impact when all the mass in unison returns.

 

[BreezeWood]

Really? When did the universe become self aware of itself?


It happened when man became self aware. So I don't see how it is redundant. How exactly is that redundant, GT?

redundant that you only include humanity when all beings are self aware, no blade of grass from 600 million years ago to eternity will never be the same.

who's to say elements are not also self aware. the periodic table, foundation for physiological life.

Spirits may exist we are unaware of persistent before the Big Bang.

 

[Syriusly]

Examples? There is really no more evidence for any other Gods than there is for Zeus. There are books about him too. Lots of people used to believe in him. Some people still might believe in him.

Make up your mind what you want to talk about. Religion? A Higher Power? Or a specific God? Which is it. Or would you like me to do all three?

Religion? Well that obviously exists. Make your case for your god.

God or Gods?

You have more than one god? Okay, whatevs. Make your case for all of your gods.

Ummm... common sense says there's only one Creator.

that is a faith argument.

Nothing more- nothing less.

 

[Syriusly]

Please tell me more about how the 'fascists' use the gay community as tools as well.

Because looking at the history of the United States- the ones who made the laws that criminalized homosexuality were Christians- elected Christians.

So far your 'well documented' history is pretty much just you saying it is.

No It has been that way for the last 2000 years. Socialism has always sought to subordinate religion. They seek to replace loyalty to God, Country and Family with loyalty to state. Every socialist movement has had a free love movement going all the way back to the Cathars and beyond.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Wow- an obscure publication from 1975.

And pointing out the Cathars- victims of a genocidal campaign by the Catholic church- which murdered men, women and children in order to stamp it out.

Particularly fascinating that you selected a religious movement as an example of a 'socialist' movement that 'sought to subordinate religion'

It was not the socialists who moved to criminalize homosexuality in America. It was Christians.

Nope. The most thorough and comprehensive analysis of the calculus of socialism that has ever been done. One that has never been refuted.

Absolutely, religions which were based on socialism attempted to subordinate the dominant religion of the day. No different than today except it is the religion of atheism which is doing it.

'dominant religion of the day'- lol

This is what you claimed;
Socialism has always sought to subordinate religion. They seek to replace loyalty to God, Country and Family with loyalty to state.

The Cathars rejected Catholicism- not religion. They put loyalty to God before loyalty to the Catholic Church- and remember the Catholic Church demanded loyalty to it before country or family.

The Cathars put loyalty to god before any state- which is why so many Cathars died rather than accept the imposition by the Catholic Death squads on the Cathar communities.

That you choice the Cathars as an example of the supposed proof of socialism objection to god.......when the Cathars were wiped out- slaughtered by Christians because of the Cathars religious beliefs....well just shows your own ignorance.

Obviously, you don't know anything about the Cathars.

Obviously you don't know anything about the Cathars. Not only have I read the very slanted Catholic accounts of the Cathars(Catholics did propaganda pretty well) I have been to Cathar country- and have seen some of the cities that the Christian death squads sacked.

Again- your choice of Cathars as an example of 'godless Socialism' just shows you own bias.

 

[Syriusly]

I find religion to be just as convincing as transgenderism.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be conservative. What is so convincing about transgenderism?

Nothing, and that is the point. There is nothing convincing about it for me. My opinion on religion is not "ignorant." I've done a lot of studying into religion. I've read the Bible. I've been to church. I reject those teachings as BS. There is nothing to argue about. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Except the case for religion is convincing.

To those believers of that religion.

Not to anyone else.

Hell not as if Hindus believe that your 'case' for Christianity is convincing, any more than Christians believe the Hindu 'case' for religion' is convincing.

 

[Syriusly]

I find religion to be just as convincing as transgenderism.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be conservative. What is so convincing about transgenderism?

Nothing, and that is the point. There is nothing convincing about it for me. My opinion on religion is not "ignorant." I've done a lot of studying into religion. I've read the Bible. I've been to church. I reject those teachings as BS. There is nothing to argue about. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Except the case for religion is convincing.

Maybe to you it is.

Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. .

Code of Hammarabi.

Churches taught morality in many ways- and I will acknowledge that some church teachings have been good- and others bad.

Do you want to argue that churches were teaching the 'correct' morality when they taught it was moral to stone an adulterous woman to death?

To put to death a man for having sex with a man?

To tell slaves to mind their owners?

When the Church divided up the New World between the Portuguese and the Spanish to conquer and enslave?

 

[Syriusly]

Religion? Well that obviously exists. Make your case for your god.

God or Gods?

You have more than one god? Okay, whatevs. Make your case for all of your gods.

Ummm... common sense says there's only one Creator. Please tell me that you aren't one of those idiots who confuses understanding of God for multiple gods, ok?

So try not to bring up who God is while we are discussing the case for God. Fair enough?

I've already started establishing that what was created can be used as evidence.
.

Just not evidence of a specific creator- or element of creation.

You are again arguing from a position of faith- not evidence. You are attempting to 'logic' your way in the absence of evidence.