The Devil’s Delusion

[PoliticalChic]

There's nothing to fight out, maxi. You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based. That's absurd, and the very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear. Unfortunately, the Religion you worship hasn't given you anything but arrogance & ignorance wrapped tightly into a big ball of shit! You stank!~

ATTA, BOY!

Out in public, where the debate belongs!

But, I see why you'd rather use neg reps, as your post is....what is the word?...parviscient.

1. "You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based."
First, it is Berlinski's argument, although I agree with it, and he does a fine job.
I'd love to take credit...but he da' man!
For example....the current discusson is as follows: if the Big Bang represents the beginning of the universe....where did it come from?

2. Your paragon says it came from energy which was eternal...and you handily agreed!
So, where did the energy come from?
Oh, it is eternal?
That's belief, or faith, as it is not possible to prove same.

3."...very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear."
Ya' mean the little folks in Asia who assembled my Dell are scientists??
Or do you mean that from the invention on, they made sure that no religious folks worked on the inventions?

4. Are you so slow-witted that you don't realize that this thread is not about inventions, but about the larger questions- such as the origin of the universe, and the basis for the answers given by the atheist phsicists vs. traditional theology?

5. From the OP: " No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses." Still think computers are part of "the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses"?

OK...now try a post!!!
I double dog dare you!

6. Now, I kinda like 'maxi'....so long as you don't add 'pad.'
Dummy.

 

[HUGGY]

The following is from "The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," by David Berlinski...

1. There are those who argue that science is in opposition to religion, and that science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe.

2. There have been four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution was set in motion in the seventeenth century:
a. Newtonian mechanics,
b. Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field,
c. Special and general relativity
d. And quantum mechanics

3. English mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has described the theories as “sometimes phenomenally accurate,” but a “tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

4. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

a. Prominent figures have hypothesized that we are merely cosmic accidents. Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so…and it is an article of their faith based on the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them in ways the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.
There is not the slightest reason to think that this is so.

5. While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. It is a system of belief both adequate and more fitting to the complexities of our existence: recompense for suffering, principles beyond selfishness. Reassurance.
While I do not know if any of this is true, I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

You funny... Make me laugh longtime..

 

[G.T.]

^ you're an eternal douchebag, so why would one bother?

But I will: I don't believe that something can come from nothing - so the fact that you think Ed and my's opinions mirror each other's simply because I like the way he pokes your ever so cocky ribs? A non-astute observation. Perhaps in all of your infinite wisdom of researching everyone ELSE's work on the subject - you should have used the search function and delved deep into clues before you spouted off at the mouth what it is that I believe. Just a thought.

And typing in outline form doesn't make you more articulate, as you like to self-proclaim of yourself - it's more like putting nice window dressing on a slummy apartment.

If you're talking about "origins," - Religion's theories are 100% faith based; whereas, certain tenets of Science's theory are faith based, and certain parts based on reproducable study of our actual reality. The one that's better will always be the one that at least SEEKS to present reproducable evidence. But the VERY origin itself - is non-answered by either in any Legitimate (to the "scientific" mind) fashion.

 

[edthecynic]

I've warned you to leave my cheeks out of this.....
...now you are going to get it.

The Big Bang represents the beginning... physicists believe and accept this. In fact, proposed it.

But, phyicists also accept that they not only cannot explain where and what was before the Big Bang...but that the Laws of Phyics, your physics book which advances the principles and laws that explain our earth, do not conform to the singularity known as the Big Bang.


1. The redshift indicates an expanding universe. When one retreats the thesis, i.e., if the universe is expanding,

a. The particles must have been closer at some time

b. And hotter at some time

c. The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

2. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time.

3. In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing ‘singularity theorems’. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some ‘singularity’ where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews

4. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books

5. "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists....one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
Christopher Isham is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London.


Now that I've 'backed up' the precis that this thread supposes....how about you take along walk on a short pier!


And remember: Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

I will quote a famous, in her own mind, know it all, "If only I could come up with a time-saving program such as the one you've developed, the abilty to speak with authority about works and subjects that you've not read.


A gift. A true gift.
With the hours that you save, you must have months saved up by the end of the year."

Your problem is you don't know the difference between TIME and ENERGY. It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end and cannot be created nor destroyed. It was the already existing ENERGY that went bang at the Big Bang.

1. So glad you perused the above - if I may live up to your charges, and call it incisive- post, and have digested the material - at least to the best of your ability.

Your post, your argument, is the best you can inform!

Good.

2. That must mean that you understand the redshift and its importance, the evidence that it provides for an expanding universe, and the Big Bang theory.

Further, that you understand that "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!!"

So, we are in agreement that temperature, the density of the material present at the 'beginning,' and the curvature of the universe are all at infinity...

3. Perhaps you would like to change your statement "It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end..."...either that or differentiate between "ENERGY" and temperature...
....and explain what appears to be an inconsistency in your belief that 'ENERGY has no beginning nor end,' yet, current theory has the temperature falling from the Big Bang 'til now? Does this imply that there was a beginning....and as it drops, that there will be an ending?

a. Would you care to explain the difference in the eternal nature of energy as compared to time? There is such a difference according to you....no?

4. I hesitate to mention this, as it seems so obvious to anyone actully cognizant in terms of this thread, but the definiton that you have so much faith in for ENERGY, "no beginning nor end," certainly makes it sound like a certain central figure in my argument....
....does it not?


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, 'you can run, but you can't hide.'



And my regards to your Mini-Beets who seems to hang on your every word, licking at your shoes....
...good-boy, G.T.!

Do you mean that as a know-it-all you DON'T know that in physics TIME exists ONLY in terms of motion? At the singularity where all the energy of this universe is concentrated into one point, the universe is neither expanding nor contracting and therefore for that singularity time does not exist.

 

[edthecynic]

There's nothing to fight out, maxi. You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based. That's absurd, and the very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear. Unfortunately, the Religion you worship hasn't given you anything but arrogance & ignorance wrapped tightly into a big ball of shit! You stank!~

ATTA, BOY!

Out in public, where the debate belongs!

But, I see why you'd rather use neg reps, as your post is....what is the word?...parviscient.

1. "You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based."
First, it is Berlinski's argument, although I agree with it, and he does a fine job.
I'd love to take credit...but he da' man!
For example....the current discusson is as follows: if the Big Bang represents the beginning of the universe....where did it come from?

2. Your paragon says it came from energy which was eternal...and you handily agreed!
So, where did the energy come from?
Oh, it is eternal?
That's belief, or faith, as it is not possible to prove same.

3."...very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear."
Ya' mean the little folks in Asia who assembled my Dell are scientists??
Or do you mean that from the invention on, they made sure that no religious folks worked on the inventions?

4. Are you so slow-witted that you don't realize that this thread is not about inventions, but about the larger questions- such as the origin of the universe, and the basis for the answers given by the atheist phsicists vs. traditional theology?

5. From the OP: " No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses." Still think computers are part of "the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses"?

OK...now try a post!!!
I double dog dare you!

6. Now, I kinda like 'maxi'....so long as you don't add 'pad.'
Dummy.

Again the know-it-all knows nothing!

The First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy, was PROVEN with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule. The unit of work called a Joule was named after him in honor of his accomplishment. You probably have a surge protector for your electronic equipment rated in joules.

 

[Sunshine]

well pasted

That response means that I'm more well-read than you, eh?

only on your home planet, sweetheart.

wherever that is

You tell us that. And I, for one, would like to believe it. But you offer no good cogent arguments for anything. You just cut and run. Anyone can do that.

This thread is an admirable one, and PC is an excellent poster. I don't always agree with everything she says, but she does make good cogent arguments and clear coherent points. And it IS clear she is well read.

 

[koshergrl]

Del doesn't make arguments. His only function is to support his troll buddies via trolling, and to assume a (laughable) superior attitude as if the fact that he's too stupid to come up with arguments of his own somehow implies he's smarter than those who do.

 

[koshergrl]

There's nothing to fight out, maxi. You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based. That's absurd, and the very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear. Unfortunately, the Religion you worship hasn't given you anything but arrogance & ignorance wrapped tightly into a big ball of shit! You stank!~

ATTA, BOY!

Out in public, where the debate belongs!

But, I see why you'd rather use neg reps, as your post is....what is the word?...parviscient.

1. "You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based."
First, it is Berlinski's argument, although I agree with it, and he does a fine job.
I'd love to take credit...but he da' man!
For example....the current discusson is as follows: if the Big Bang represents the beginning of the universe....where did it come from?

2. Your paragon says it came from energy which was eternal...and you handily agreed!
So, where did the energy come from?
Oh, it is eternal?
That's belief, or faith, as it is not possible to prove same.

3."...very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear."
Ya' mean the little folks in Asia who assembled my Dell are scientists??
Or do you mean that from the invention on, they made sure that no religious folks worked on the inventions?

4. Are you so slow-witted that you don't realize that this thread is not about inventions, but about the larger questions- such as the origin of the universe, and the basis for the answers given by the atheist phsicists vs. traditional theology?

5. From the OP: " No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses." Still think computers are part of "the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses"?

OK...now try a post!!!
I double dog dare you!

6. Now, I kinda like 'maxi'....so long as you don't add 'pad.'
Dummy.

Again the know-it-all knows nothing!

The First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy, was PROVEN with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule. The unit of work called a Joule was named after him in honor of his accomplishment. You probably have a surge protector for your electronic equipment rated in joules.

So? the point I think she's trying to make is that all science starts somewhere with someone, generally labeled as a "kook", who has an idea, completely unproven at the time, and often flying in the face of "known" science...and based on their BELIEF and FAITH that they are correct in their assumptions, they set out to prove (or disprove) that theory.

It starts with faith. Which is why it's laughable when self-labeled internet geniuses laugh at the idea of believing in something that hasn't yet been proven to their satisfaction. If that was the measuring stick by which man determined whether or not to pursue knowledge, we would still bein the stone age....probably stuck sometime before fire was harnessed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ you're an eternal douchebag, so why would one bother?

But I will: I don't believe that something can come from nothing - so the fact that you think Ed and my's opinions mirror each other's simply because I like the way he pokes your ever so cocky ribs? A non-astute observation. Perhaps in all of your infinite wisdom of researching everyone ELSE's work on the subject - you should have used the search function and delved deep into clues before you spouted off at the mouth what it is that I believe. Just a thought.

And typing in outline form doesn't make you more articulate, as you like to self-proclaim of yourself - it's more like putting nice window dressing on a slummy apartment.

If you're talking about "origins," - Religion's theories are 100% faith based; whereas, certain tenets of Science's theory are faith based, and certain parts based on reproducable study of our actual reality. The one that's better will always be the one that at least SEEKS to present reproducable evidence. But the VERY origin itself - is non-answered by either in any Legitimate (to the "scientific" mind) fashion.

Pssst.....the language you use identifies you as really low-class.

True story.

 

[G.T.]

^ you're an eternal douchebag, so why would one bother?

But I will: I don't believe that something can come from nothing - so the fact that you think Ed and my's opinions mirror each other's simply because I like the way he pokes your ever so cocky ribs? A non-astute observation. Perhaps in all of your infinite wisdom of researching everyone ELSE's work on the subject - you should have used the search function and delved deep into clues before you spouted off at the mouth what it is that I believe. Just a thought.

And typing in outline form doesn't make you more articulate, as you like to self-proclaim of yourself - it's more like putting nice window dressing on a slummy apartment.

If you're talking about "origins," - Religion's theories are 100% faith based; whereas, certain tenets of Science's theory are faith based, and certain parts based on reproducable study of our actual reality. The one that's better will always be the one that at least SEEKS to present reproducable evidence. But the VERY origin itself - is non-answered by either in any Legitimate (to the "scientific" mind) fashion.

Pssst.....the language you use identifies you as really low-class.

True story.

I dont give a fuck, your opinion of me on these boards has 0% significance to all of my family and friends that I've got surrounding me, but continue to try and feel important!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I will quote a famous, in her own mind, know it all, "If only I could come up with a time-saving program such as the one you've developed, the abilty to speak with authority about works and subjects that you've not read.


A gift. A true gift.
With the hours that you save, you must have months saved up by the end of the year."

Your problem is you don't know the difference between TIME and ENERGY. It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end and cannot be created nor destroyed. It was the already existing ENERGY that went bang at the Big Bang.

1. So glad you perused the above - if I may live up to your charges, and call it incisive- post, and have digested the material - at least to the best of your ability.

Your post, your argument, is the best you can inform!

Good.

2. That must mean that you understand the redshift and its importance, the evidence that it provides for an expanding universe, and the Big Bang theory.

Further, that you understand that "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!!"

So, we are in agreement that temperature, the density of the material present at the 'beginning,' and the curvature of the universe are all at infinity...

3. Perhaps you would like to change your statement "It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end..."...either that or differentiate between "ENERGY" and temperature...
....and explain what appears to be an inconsistency in your belief that 'ENERGY has no beginning nor end,' yet, current theory has the temperature falling from the Big Bang 'til now? Does this imply that there was a beginning....and as it drops, that there will be an ending?

a. Would you care to explain the difference in the eternal nature of energy as compared to time? There is such a difference according to you....no?

4. I hesitate to mention this, as it seems so obvious to anyone actully cognizant in terms of this thread, but the definiton that you have so much faith in for ENERGY, "no beginning nor end," certainly makes it sound like a certain central figure in my argument....
....does it not?


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, 'you can run, but you can't hide.'



And my regards to your Mini-Beets who seems to hang on your every word, licking at your shoes....
...good-boy, G.T.!

Do you mean that as a know-it-all you DON'T know that in physics TIME exists ONLY in terms of motion? At the singularity where all the energy of this universe is concentrated into one point, the universe is neither expanding nor contracting and therefore for that singularity time does not exist.

There are several definitions that apply to 'time'.

You mean you didn't know that?

For edification:
Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's nothing to fight out, maxi. You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based. That's absurd, and the very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear. Unfortunately, the Religion you worship hasn't given you anything but arrogance & ignorance wrapped tightly into a big ball of shit! You stank!~

ATTA, BOY!

Out in public, where the debate belongs!

But, I see why you'd rather use neg reps, as your post is....what is the word?...parviscient.

1. "You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based."
First, it is Berlinski's argument, although I agree with it, and he does a fine job.
I'd love to take credit...but he da' man!
For example....the current discusson is as follows: if the Big Bang represents the beginning of the universe....where did it come from?

2. Your paragon says it came from energy which was eternal...and you handily agreed!
So, where did the energy come from?
Oh, it is eternal?
That's belief, or faith, as it is not possible to prove same.

3."...very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear."
Ya' mean the little folks in Asia who assembled my Dell are scientists??
Or do you mean that from the invention on, they made sure that no religious folks worked on the inventions?

4. Are you so slow-witted that you don't realize that this thread is not about inventions, but about the larger questions- such as the origin of the universe, and the basis for the answers given by the atheist phsicists vs. traditional theology?

5. From the OP: " No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses." Still think computers are part of "the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses"?

OK...now try a post!!!
I double dog dare you!

6. Now, I kinda like 'maxi'....so long as you don't add 'pad.'
Dummy.

Again the know-it-all knows nothing!

The First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy, was PROVEN with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule. The unit of work called a Joule was named after him in honor of his accomplishment. You probably have a surge protector for your electronic equipment rated in joules.

1. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books
Thus the laws of thermodynamics do not apply at or before the singularity.


2. If you are willing to live or die by the definition you give, that energy has always existed, then you are accepting that view based on....

....ready....

Faith!

My premise is proven.
quod erat demonstrandum

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ you're an eternal douchebag, so why would one bother?

But I will: I don't believe that something can come from nothing - so the fact that you think Ed and my's opinions mirror each other's simply because I like the way he pokes your ever so cocky ribs? A non-astute observation. Perhaps in all of your infinite wisdom of researching everyone ELSE's work on the subject - you should have used the search function and delved deep into clues before you spouted off at the mouth what it is that I believe. Just a thought.

And typing in outline form doesn't make you more articulate, as you like to self-proclaim of yourself - it's more like putting nice window dressing on a slummy apartment.

If you're talking about "origins," - Religion's theories are 100% faith based; whereas, certain tenets of Science's theory are faith based, and certain parts based on reproducable study of our actual reality. The one that's better will always be the one that at least SEEKS to present reproducable evidence. But the VERY origin itself - is non-answered by either in any Legitimate (to the "scientific" mind) fashion.

Pssst.....the language you use identifies you as really low-class.

True story.

I dont give a fuck, your opinion of me on these boards has 0% significance to all of my family and friends that I've got surrounding me, but continue to try and feel important!

Once again your inability to comprehend reality is evident, Mini.

Your choice of language, of expression, is undoubtedly a part of you that appears both here and is evident to "family and friends," and, sadly, will influence the little one as well. Opinions will be based on it.

It identifies you exactly as I stated.

 

[G.T.]

Pssst.....the language you use identifies you as really low-class.

True story.

I dont give a fuck, your opinion of me on these boards has 0% significance to all of my family and friends that I've got surrounding me, but continue to try and feel important!

Once again your inability to comprehend reality is evident, Mini.

Your choice of language, of expression, is undoubtedly a part of you that appears both here and is evident to "family and friends," and, sadly, will influence the little one as well. Opinions will be based on it.

It identifies you exactly as I stated.

1st of all - don't talk about my Daughter and how she will be raised. It's none of your fucking business and you've not the slightest clue about how we talk or will talk in front of her in the future. Back your snobbish comments the fuck off, hag.

I have a firm enough grasp of reality to know 2 things:

-I'm quite successful at this game we call "life."
-Your view of my posts on the internet mean absolute shit.

And that's good enough.

 

[edthecynic]

1. So glad you perused the above - if I may live up to your charges, and call it incisive- post, and have digested the material - at least to the best of your ability.

Your post, your argument, is the best you can inform!

Good.

2. That must mean that you understand the redshift and its importance, the evidence that it provides for an expanding universe, and the Big Bang theory.

Further, that you understand that "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!!"

So, we are in agreement that temperature, the density of the material present at the 'beginning,' and the curvature of the universe are all at infinity...

3. Perhaps you would like to change your statement "It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end..."...either that or differentiate between "ENERGY" and temperature...
....and explain what appears to be an inconsistency in your belief that 'ENERGY has no beginning nor end,' yet, current theory has the temperature falling from the Big Bang 'til now? Does this imply that there was a beginning....and as it drops, that there will be an ending?

a. Would you care to explain the difference in the eternal nature of energy as compared to time? There is such a difference according to you....no?

4. I hesitate to mention this, as it seems so obvious to anyone actully cognizant in terms of this thread, but the definiton that you have so much faith in for ENERGY, "no beginning nor end," certainly makes it sound like a certain central figure in my argument....
....does it not?


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, 'you can run, but you can't hide.'



And my regards to your Mini-Beets who seems to hang on your every word, licking at your shoes....
...good-boy, G.T.!

Do you mean that as a know-it-all you DON'T know that in physics TIME exists ONLY in terms of motion? At the singularity where all the energy of this universe is concentrated into one point, the universe is neither expanding nor contracting and therefore for that singularity time does not exist.

There are several definitions that apply to 'time'.

You mean you didn't know that?

For edification:
Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But not in physics. In PHYSICS, time exists only in TERMS of MOTION like distance, velocity, acceleration, etc.

 

[edthecynic]

ATTA, BOY!

Out in public, where the debate belongs!

But, I see why you'd rather use neg reps, as your post is....what is the word?...parviscient.

1. "You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based."
First, it is Berlinski's argument, although I agree with it, and he does a fine job.
I'd love to take credit...but he da' man!
For example....the current discusson is as follows: if the Big Bang represents the beginning of the universe....where did it come from?

2. Your paragon says it came from energy which was eternal...and you handily agreed!
So, where did the energy come from?
Oh, it is eternal?
That's belief, or faith, as it is not possible to prove same.

3."...very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear."
Ya' mean the little folks in Asia who assembled my Dell are scientists??
Or do you mean that from the invention on, they made sure that no religious folks worked on the inventions?

4. Are you so slow-witted that you don't realize that this thread is not about inventions, but about the larger questions- such as the origin of the universe, and the basis for the answers given by the atheist phsicists vs. traditional theology?

5. From the OP: " No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses." Still think computers are part of "the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses"?

OK...now try a post!!!
I double dog dare you!

6. Now, I kinda like 'maxi'....so long as you don't add 'pad.'
Dummy.

Again the know-it-all knows nothing!

The First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy, was PROVEN with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule. The unit of work called a Joule was named after him in honor of his accomplishment. You probably have a surge protector for your electronic equipment rated in joules.

1. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books
Thus the laws of thermodynamics do not apply at or before the singularity.


2. If you are willing to live or die by the definition you give, that energy has always existed, then you are accepting that view based on....

....ready....

Faith!

My premise is proven.
quod erat demonstrandum

That is just an opinion, other theories exist where the Laws of Thermodynamics do not break down because there is no singularity. These theories are based on advanced mathematics, not faith.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I dont give a fuck, your opinion of me on these boards has 0% significance to all of my family and friends that I've got surrounding me, but continue to try and feel important!

Once again your inability to comprehend reality is evident, Mini.

Your choice of language, of expression, is undoubtedly a part of you that appears both here and is evident to "family and friends," and, sadly, will influence the little one as well. Opinions will be based on it.

It identifies you exactly as I stated.

1st of all - don't talk about my Daughter and how she will be raised. It's none of your fucking business and you've not the slightest clue about how we talk or will talk in front of her in the future. Back your snobbish comments the fuck off, hag.

I have a firm enough grasp of reality to know 2 things:

-I'm quite successful at this game we call "life."
-Your view of my posts on the internet mean absolute shit.

And that's good enough.

1. To make this clear....I was speaking of you, not the little one.

2. The anger that you show in this post is an indication that you realize the veracity of my ciriticism.
Perhaps you will try to be more civil in your discourse.

Best of luck in that endeavor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again the know-it-all knows nothing!

The First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy, was PROVEN with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule. The unit of work called a Joule was named after him in honor of his accomplishment. You probably have a surge protector for your electronic equipment rated in joules.

1. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books
Thus the laws of thermodynamics do not apply at or before the singularity.


2. If you are willing to live or die by the definition you give, that energy has always existed, then you are accepting that view based on....

....ready....

Faith!

My premise is proven.
quod erat demonstrandum

That is just an opinion, other theories exist where the Laws of Thermodynamics do not break down because there is no singularity. These theories are based on advanced mathematics, not faith.

I get such a kick out of you, BeetsAndSpinach!

You don't realize how you have advanced my position with this statement: "That is just an opinion, other theories..."

More opinions???
No proof, just theories??

Just like religion, huh?


Next witness.

 

[G.T.]

Once again your inability to comprehend reality is evident, Mini.

Your choice of language, of expression, is undoubtedly a part of you that appears both here and is evident to "family and friends," and, sadly, will influence the little one as well. Opinions will be based on it.

It identifies you exactly as I stated.

1st of all - don't talk about my Daughter and how she will be raised. It's none of your fucking business and you've not the slightest clue about how we talk or will talk in front of her in the future. Back your snobbish comments the fuck off, hag.

I have a firm enough grasp of reality to know 2 things:

-I'm quite successful at this game we call "life."
-Your view of my posts on the internet mean absolute shit.

And that's good enough.

1. To make this clear....I was speaking of you, not the little one.

2. The anger that you show in this post is an indication that you realize the veracity of my ciriticism.
Perhaps you will try to be more civil in your discourse.

Best of luck in that endeavor.

No, there was no anger, only swear words - for effect - to get the point through what is a thick thick skull. That's what appears to be your (elephant in the room-sized) problem. You take this internet shit WAY too seriously. The format you write in, etc. etc. I mean it's quite obsessive and at the same time impressive, in that it's consistent. Consistently using others' words to make your points more uh, articulate than you could.

I don't take the advice of being more "civil" in discourse from someone who is the utmost uncivil in discourse. You make snide comments on anyone's intellect who disagrees with you, and that is not civility - that is pompass arrogance coming from an insane person.

You did speak of how my little one will be raised, and for that - you are low. Wear your cross now, ass hole.

 

[edthecynic]

1. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books
Thus the laws of thermodynamics do not apply at or before the singularity.


2. If you are willing to live or die by the definition you give, that energy has always existed, then you are accepting that view based on....

....ready....

Faith!

My premise is proven.
quod erat demonstrandum

That is just an opinion, other theories exist where the Laws of Thermodynamics do not break down because there is no singularity. These theories are based on advanced mathematics, not faith.

I get such a kick out of you, BeetsAndSpinach!

You don't realize how you have advanced my position with this statement: "That is just an opinion, other theories..."

More opinions???
No proof, just theories??

Just like religion, huh?


Next witness.

And which religion is based on advanced mathematics?

You've already rejected a proven Law of physics on the opinion of an astronomer, so God herself could tell you that you are wrong and you would reject it.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I truly wish you whackos can get science legally established as a religion so that I, as a physicist, can get the same special tax privileges the lesser religions get.