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.
Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such existsBack to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such existsBack to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
As for the idea of God, that's nonsense. You didn't understand did you? The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought. It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist. The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful. Nil probability? You just made that up out of thin air. That's not why they don't believe He exists. They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.
As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.
I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.
Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.
Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.
Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.
Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.
As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through. The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie. She appears to be a person of an unsound mind. She has real psychological problems. Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted. He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/
Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.
Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.
That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
Didn't even IMPLY I knew what it would look like.That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
How do you know what "existence" looks like in another universe?
That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
Didn't even IMPLY I knew what it would look like.
Sorry, but no. There's nothing about fraud that have a need to tolerate.That's true, Boss. Join the cult of M. Pompous Rawling (you can be cult member 2 behind Justin), you too can become all a thumper can be.I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.
I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.
Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.
Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.
Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.
Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.
As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through. The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie. She appears to be a person of an unsound mind. She has real psychological problems. Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted. He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/
Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.
Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.
Just memorize "the seven things". That's the shahada for membership and you will prostrate yourself at the alter of "the seven things" at prayer vigils five times per day.
Your prostrating before the very same alter, as are we all, so welcome to my world. Amen.
Umm...no. Not at all.Didn't even IMPLY I knew what it would look like.
Really?
"this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow."
Sounds like you did just that.
Which means you're not understanding a number of very basic precepts.Hollie said:
“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.
Which equals atheism.
So then your answer to my original post about proving in an absolute sense that we were created should have been "we can never KNOW that."That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!
Would you extend this exact rule to every other god? Didn't think so. Now we really see who's statement is contadictory and illogical.Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such existsBack to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
As for the idea of God, that's nonsense. You didn't understand did you? The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought. It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist.
Sorry but there has been zero evidence.The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful.
Faith means believing in something without evidence. Please provide the tiniest shred of evidence. I will even award you the pullitzer prize myself.Nil probability? You just made that up out of thin air. That's not why they don't believe He exists. They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.
So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such existsBack to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.
Hollie said:
“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.
Which equals atheism.
Faith means believing in something without evidence. Please provide the tiniest shred of evidence. I will even award you the pullitzer prize myself.
So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such existsBack to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.
Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.![]()
2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number. Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4. But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds. This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility. However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance. And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".