Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[ding]

I gotta tell ya...coming from the guy that doesnt understand the things taught in a 9th grade science class....that doesn't really sting.

You mean like the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe without experiencing thermal equilibrium?

Or that it is possible for matter and energy to be created through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation of energy and mass? Or that the laws of nature governed the creation of time and space and therefore were in place before time and space were created?

See what I mean by you would look less foolish if you didn't take such stupid positions?

Ding, you are regurgitating very basic ideas, amd thinking they make you seem very educated....which is a dead give away that you are not all that educated.

Really? I don't seem to recall you jumping in the debates with that position.

In fact, I'm pretty sure you argued against these very basic ideas.

 

[ding]

I gotta tell ya...coming from the guy that doesnt understand the things taught in a 9th grade science class....that doesn't really sting.

You mean like the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe without experiencing thermal equilibrium?

Or that it is possible for matter and energy to be created through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation of energy and mass? Or that the laws of nature governed the creation of time and space and therefore were in place before time and space were created?

See what I mean by you would look less foolish if you didn't take such stupid positions?

Ding, you are regurgitating very basic ideas, amd thinking they make you seem very educated....which is a dead give away that you are not all that educated.

And here you are arguing against a very basic idea with some bullshit that makes no sense at all.

And you think I am the one who is not educated? I've got a BS in engineering. What do you have a HS diploma? Google intelligence?

 

[ding]

And there is more

 

[Crixus]

Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

fraud laws - Google Search

Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain. Fraud offenses always include some sort of false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct.

Most governments and countries have fraud laws of some kinds. They generally interfere with religious fraudsters only when physical harm is being done to our gullible citizens yet ignore the monetary theft that the fraudsters fleece from their victims. Prosperity ministries are the most flagrant of these immoral religions, but all religions based on demonstrable lies would be included in this question.

Our governments are quite good at acting against obvious fraudsters yet seem reluctant to protect our more gullible citizens when it comes down to religions.

Religions, to me, get a free pass to lie and steal all they can from victims, especially the older citizens even when governments know about the fraud.

I begin to see the inaction of governments on these religious fraudsters as a dereliction of duty.

Do you?

Regards
DL

No. caveat emptor.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I did not. You are confused. I tried, repeatedly, to help you understand the difference between "our subverse" and the univerae (multiverse) in the arguments I made, and you just couldnt seem to grasp it.

I think you are plenty smart enough to understand it...I just think your superstitions and delusions of grandeur get in your way....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I gotta tell ya...coming from the guy that doesnt understand the things taught in a 9th grade science class....that doesn't really sting.

You mean like the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe without experiencing thermal equilibrium?

Or that it is possible for matter and energy to be created through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation of energy and mass? Or that the laws of nature governed the creation of time and space and therefore were in place before time and space were created?

See what I mean by you would look less foolish if you didn't take such stupid positions?

Ding, you are regurgitating very basic ideas, amd thinking they make you seem very educated....which is a dead give away that you are not all that educated.

And here you are arguing against a very basic idea with some bullshit that makes no sense at all.

View attachment 182430

And you think I am the one who is not educated? I've got a BS in engineering. What do you have a HS diploma? Google intelligence?

All of your prancing and dancing aside...you forgot to actually argue against what I said, there.

And nobody cares about your degree in engineering, ding.

 

[ding]

I did not. You are confused. I tried, repeatedly, to help you understand the difference between "our subverse" and the univerae (multiverse) in the arguments I made, and you just couldnt seem to grasp it.

I think you are plenty smart enough to understand it...I just think your superstitions and delusions of grandeur get in your way....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I did not. You are confused. I tried, repeatedly, to help you understand the difference between "our subverse" and the univerae (multiverse) in the arguments I made, and you just couldnt seem to grasp it.

I think you are plenty smart enough to understand it...I just think your superstitions and delusions of grandeur get in your way....

View attachment 182432

Correct... no, not necessarily. And that is true of both the subverse and the universe, though, possibly , for different reasons.

 

[ding]

I gotta tell ya...coming from the guy that doesnt understand the things taught in a 9th grade science class....that doesn't really sting.

You mean like the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe without experiencing thermal equilibrium?

Or that it is possible for matter and energy to be created through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation of energy and mass? Or that the laws of nature governed the creation of time and space and therefore were in place before time and space were created?

See what I mean by you would look less foolish if you didn't take such stupid positions?

Ding, you are regurgitating very basic ideas, amd thinking they make you seem very educated....which is a dead give away that you are not all that educated.

And here you are arguing against a very basic idea with some bullshit that makes no sense at all.

View attachment 182430

And you think I am the one who is not educated? I've got a BS in engineering. What do you have a HS diploma? Google intelligence?

All of your prancing and dancing aside...you forgot to actually argue against what I said, there.

And nobody cares about your degree in engineering, ding.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are arguing out of both sides of your face against yourself.

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.

 

[ding]

I did not. You are confused. I tried, repeatedly, to help you understand the difference between "our subverse" and the univerae (multiverse) in the arguments I made, and you just couldnt seem to grasp it.

I think you are plenty smart enough to understand it...I just think your superstitions and delusions of grandeur get in your way....

View attachment 182432

Correct... no, not necessarily. And that is true of both the subverse and the universe, though, possibly , for different reasons.

This universe had a beginning. You cannot avoid this and you continue to argue against it and for it depending on the direction of the wind.

 

[ding]

I gotta tell ya...coming from the guy that doesnt understand the things taught in a 9th grade science class....that doesn't really sting.

You mean like the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe without experiencing thermal equilibrium?

Or that it is possible for matter and energy to be created through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation of energy and mass? Or that the laws of nature governed the creation of time and space and therefore were in place before time and space were created?

See what I mean by you would look less foolish if you didn't take such stupid positions?

Ding, you are regurgitating very basic ideas, amd thinking they make you seem very educated....which is a dead give away that you are not all that educated.

And here you are arguing against a very basic idea with some bullshit that makes no sense at all.

View attachment 182430

And you think I am the one who is not educated? I've got a BS in engineering. What do you have a HS diploma? Google intelligence?

All of your prancing and dancing aside...you forgot to actually argue against what I said, there.

And nobody cares about your degree in engineering, ding.

It means that I understand science. You don't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. I

No, not necessarily. Ding, you are pretty far behind the scientific community. While some may believe this, all admit they could be wrong because of ideas like this one:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I urge you to start reading more. there are plenty of good resources for a layman such as yourself that help you understand the modern ideas in physics.

 

[ding]

You mean like the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe without experiencing thermal equilibrium?

Or that it is possible for matter and energy to be created through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation of energy and mass? Or that the laws of nature governed the creation of time and space and therefore were in place before time and space were created?

See what I mean by you would look less foolish if you didn't take such stupid positions?

Ding, you are regurgitating very basic ideas, amd thinking they make you seem very educated....which is a dead give away that you are not all that educated.

See?

 

[ding]

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. I

No, not necessarily. Ding, you are pretty far behind the scientific community. While some may believe this, all admit they could be wrong because of ideas like this one:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I urge you to start reading more. there are plenty of good resources for a layman such as yourself that help you understand the modern ideas in physics.

The fact that you don't understand the link you just posted is obvious to me.

I've already dealt with this.

You want to take this to the bull ring and debate it?

 

[ding]

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. I

No, not necessarily. Ding, you are pretty far behind the scientific community. While some may believe this, all admit they could be wrong because of ideas like this one:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I urge you to start reading more. there are plenty of good resources for a layman such as yourself that help you understand the modern ideas in physics.

Do you want me to explain what they did?

Because you sure as hell don't understand it.

I do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because you sure as hell don't understand it.

I do.

Clearly, you do not. You always claim to understand things, ding. Then you fall on your face when it comes time to explain them.


Moving on...


Then, there is the "cyclic model", which can, indeed, produce an infinite universe with no maximum entropy: No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model

 

[ding]

You mean like the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe without experiencing thermal equilibrium?

Or that it is possible for matter and energy to be created through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation of energy and mass? Or that the laws of nature governed the creation of time and space and therefore were in place before time and space were created?

See what I mean by you would look less foolish if you didn't take such stupid positions?

Ding, you are regurgitating very basic ideas, amd thinking they make you seem very educated....which is a dead give away that you are not all that educated.

See?

No ding, all we see is you masturbating. Try to follow what I am trying to explain...

What I see is you contradicting yourself.

 

[ding]

Because you sure as hell don't understand it.

I do.

Clearly, you do not. You always claim to understand things, ding. Then you fall on your face when it comes time to explain them.


Moving on...


Then, there is the "cyclic model", which can, indeed, produce an infinite universe with no maximum entropy: No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model

You are googling stuff you don't understand.

Let's debate it in the bull ring.

Are you scared?

 

[ding]

Because you sure as hell don't understand it.

I do.

Clearly, you do not. You always claim to understand things, ding. Then you fall on your face when it comes time to explain them.


Moving on...


Then, there is the "cyclic model", which can, indeed, produce an infinite universe with no maximum entropy: No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are googling stuff you don't understand.

No ding, not so. These are mostly ideas that have been around for quite a while. It is you who has grown lazy and ignorant, due to spending too much time on your goofy religion. Even the Hartle-hawking "no boundary" proposition has been around for decades. the cyclic model is cool. I can tel by your defensive, whiny posture that you have never learned fact one about it. You really should read up on it.

The great thing about it is that it might end up being empirically testable.