The Devil’s Delusion

[koshergrl]

I will share the wonderful things God has done, and it is my right to do so. If you don't like it, walk away. Absent the thread. Whatever. I don't care. You have the right to leave.

You do not have the right to make me be quiet in your presence, however.

PS...most of the pioneers of life changing science were Christians. And most of those who work with the diseased, the destitute, the addicted, the orphaned...are Christian as well. And that has been the way it has been since Christianity was established.

 

[G.T.]

I will share the wonderful things God has done, and it is my right to do so. If you don't like it, walk away. Absent the thread. Whatever. I don't care. You have the right to leave.

You do not have the right to make me be quiet in your presence, however.

PS...most of the pioneers of life changing science were Christians. And most of those who work with the diseased, the destitute, the addicted, the orphaned...are Christian as well. And that has been the way it has been since Christianity was established.

They also had one other thing in common, but even greater in number: they were all HUMAN.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, you want the right to talk at me, but, please, don't say anything back.

Sorry, girl, it doesn't work that way. At least not in this nation. Yes, many of the pioneers in science were Christian, including Darwin. Just as today, in Physics, many of the pioneers are Jews and Hindus. And in math and astronomy, the pioneers were Moslems.

 

[edthecynic]

Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true." Ibid.

Now there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!


4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???

You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!


OK...since there is no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?

Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.

Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.

Well, there you go again with your dishonest editing of quotes. But then again, as a CON$ervative you are powerless to stop yourself.

If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true. Our universe is what it is because we are here. The situation could be likened to a school of intelligent fish who one day began wondering why their world is completely filled with water. Many of the fish, the theorists, hope to prove that the entire cosmos necessarily has to be filled with water. For years, they put their minds to the task but can never quite seem to prove their assertion. Then, a wizened group of fish postulates that maybe they are fooling themselves. Maybe there are, they suggest, many other worlds, some of them completely dry, and everything in between.

Beets, it's so much fun responding to your rants, as they both establish you as the big, dumb teddy bear that you are, and because they allow me to reprise the point for readers not paying close attention...


You see, the claim to fame of the science caucus, to use the word of the day, over the religious causus, is that they have discovered fundamental principles, carved in stone, that apply to all of nature, forever and eternal.

But...physicists who have clung to atheism are now shaking in their Ugs as they realize that the parameters of our universe 'seem' to have been 'designed' to embrace, cause, support life!
And the 'Designer' would be....
...you guessed it!

And so, they have come up with an idea, based on 'faith'...meaning without any empirical support, that there might be an infinite number of universes that each have a different set of fundamental physical laws...i.e., the 'multiverse.'

This represents a major retreat by the 'science only' folks.

So you see, you are wrong, again, in stating that I might be dishonest.

Understand now, my slow-witted friend?


Was an astounding article, though, wasn't it?

You're still flopping like a fish out of water.
The fish example obviously went completely over your head! Not uncommon for know-it-alls.

How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic.

But keep the pompous condescension coming.

 

[koshergrl]

In other words, you want the right to talk at me, but, please, don't say anything back.

Sorry, girl, it doesn't work that way. At least not in this nation. Yes, many of the pioneers in science were Christian, including Darwin. Just as today, in Physics, many of the pioneers are Jews and Hindus. And in math and astronomy, the pioneers were Moslems.

No, not at all. You can say anything you want. Provided it doesn't violate my right to free speech and freedom of religion.

You can say you want to squash those freedoms, but I will identify them as what they are, fascism, and continue to say what I please, where I please, when I please.

Have you tallied up the number of Muslim nobel prize winners? I beg you, do it. Compare them to the number of Christian ones before you start yammering about how science is the venue of non-Christians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, there you go again with your dishonest editing of quotes. But then again, as a CON$ervative you are powerless to stop yourself.

Beets, it's so much fun responding to your rants, as they both establish you as the big, dumb teddy bear that you are, and because they allow me to reprise the point for readers not paying close attention...


You see, the claim to fame of the science caucus, to use the word of the day, over the religious causus, is that they have discovered fundamental principles, carved in stone, that apply to all of nature, forever and eternal.

But...physicists who have clung to atheism are now shaking in their Ugs as they realize that the parameters of our universe 'seem' to have been 'designed' to embrace, cause, support life!
And the 'Designer' would be....
...you guessed it!

And so, they have come up with an idea, based on 'faith'...meaning without any empirical support, that there might be an infinite number of universes that each have a different set of fundamental physical laws...i.e., the 'multiverse.'

This represents a major retreat by the 'science only' folks.

So you see, you are wrong, again, in stating that I might be dishonest.

Understand now, my slow-witted friend?


Was an astounding article, though, wasn't it?

You're still flopping like a fish out of water.
The fish example obviously went completely over your head! Not uncommon for know-it-alls.

How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic.

But keep the pompous condescension coming.

"How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic. "

Well, certainly beyond your ability for logical thinking.
And to prove how abysmally dumb your post is...
....G.T. liked it!


You got the point totally backwards! (not unusual for you, of course)
1. I'm on the side of the aisle supporting the view that a loving God created the universe, and mankind and everything else.

2. Physicist professor Lightman (see Harper's Mag article) admits that the conditions in this universe are uncomforably close to being so perfect for the support of life, all life, that it almost demands the existence of a 'Designer,' i.e., God.

3. Now, you've failed to get this point twice already...and three strikes and your out...so hold tight:
"...the potential existence of every possible kind of universe..." is the point made by the athieist physicists!!!
Your side makes up bogus universes where up is down and black is white!!!
Like ACLU lawyers, fer gosh sakes!

Get it: not my side, your side!!!

They have to hypothesize a 'multiverse' with every permutation and combination of the principles of physics. Most of 'em flying in the face of the fundamental laws of physics that have been memorialized here on earth.

Dumb, isn't it.
But not too dumb for flotsam and jetsam (you and G.T.) to climb right on board.
Yous is down wit dat, huh?


Just a question-
Pompous:
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious


Is that what you mean?
Yeah?
(sigh...) I'm gonna have a hard time denying that....

 

[G.T.]

Beets, it's so much fun responding to your rants, as they both establish you as the big, dumb teddy bear that you are, and because they allow me to reprise the point for readers not paying close attention...


You see, the claim to fame of the science caucus, to use the word of the day, over the religious causus, is that they have discovered fundamental principles, carved in stone, that apply to all of nature, forever and eternal.

But...physicists who have clung to atheism are now shaking in their Ugs as they realize that the parameters of our universe 'seem' to have been 'designed' to embrace, cause, support life!
And the 'Designer' would be....
...you guessed it!

And so, they have come up with an idea, based on 'faith'...meaning without any empirical support, that there might be an infinite number of universes that each have a different set of fundamental physical laws...i.e., the 'multiverse.'

This represents a major retreat by the 'science only' folks.

So you see, you are wrong, again, in stating that I might be dishonest.

Understand now, my slow-witted friend?


Was an astounding article, though, wasn't it?

You're still flopping like a fish out of water.
The fish example obviously went completely over your head! Not uncommon for know-it-alls.

How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic.

But keep the pompous condescension coming.

"How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic. "

Well, certainly beyond your ability for logical thinking.
And to prove how abysmally dumb your post is...
....G.T. liked it!


You got the point totally backwards! (not unusual for you, of course)
1. I'm on the side of the aisle supporting the view that a loving God created the universe, and mankind and everything else.

2. Physicist professor Lightman (see Harper's Mag article) admits that the conditions in this universe are uncomforably close to being so perfect for the support of life, all life, that it almost demands the existence of a 'Designer,' i.e., God.

3. Now, you've failed to get this point twice already...and three strikes and your out...so hold tight:
"...the potential existence of every possible kind of universe..." is the point made by the athieist physicists!!!
Your side makes up bogus universes where up is down and black is white!!!
Like ACLU lawyers, fer gosh sakes!

Get it: not my side, your side!!!

They have to hypothesize a 'multiverse' with every permutation and combination of the principles of physics. Most of 'em flying in the face of the fundamental laws of physics that have been memorialized here on earth.

Dumb, isn't it.
But not too dumb for flotsam and jetsam (you and G.T.) to climb right on board.
Yous is down wit dat, huh?


Just a question-
Pompous:
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious


Is that what you mean?
Yeah?
(sigh...) I'm gonna have a hard time denying that....

Hey not to burst your high and mighty bubble, but most of the Universe is actually incapable of harboring life.

 

[edthecynic]

Beets, it's so much fun responding to your rants, as they both establish you as the big, dumb teddy bear that you are, and because they allow me to reprise the point for readers not paying close attention...


You see, the claim to fame of the science caucus, to use the word of the day, over the religious causus, is that they have discovered fundamental principles, carved in stone, that apply to all of nature, forever and eternal.

But...physicists who have clung to atheism are now shaking in their Ugs as they realize that the parameters of our universe 'seem' to have been 'designed' to embrace, cause, support life!
And the 'Designer' would be....
...you guessed it!

And so, they have come up with an idea, based on 'faith'...meaning without any empirical support, that there might be an infinite number of universes that each have a different set of fundamental physical laws...i.e., the 'multiverse.'

This represents a major retreat by the 'science only' folks.

So you see, you are wrong, again, in stating that I might be dishonest.

Understand now, my slow-witted friend?


Was an astounding article, though, wasn't it?

You're still flopping like a fish out of water.
The fish example obviously went completely over your head! Not uncommon for know-it-alls.

How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic.

But keep the pompous condescension coming.

"How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic. "

Well, certainly beyond your ability for logical thinking.
And to prove how abysmally dumb your post is...
....G.T. liked it!


You got the point totally backwards! (not unusual for you, of course)
1. I'm on the side of the aisle supporting the view that a loving God created the universe, and mankind and everything else.

2. Physicist professor Lightman (see Harper's Mag article) admits that the conditions in this universe are uncomforably close to being so perfect for the support of life, all life, that it almost demands the existence of a 'Designer,' i.e., God.

3. Now, you've failed to get this point twice already...and three strikes and your out...so hold tight:
"...the potential existence of every possible kind of universe..." is the point made by the athieist physicists!!!
Your side makes up bogus universes where up is down and black is white!!!
Like ACLU lawyers, fer gosh sakes!

Get it: not my side, your side!!!

They have to hypothesize a 'multiverse' with every permutation and combination of the principles of physics. Most of 'em flying in the face of the fundamental laws of physics that have been memorialized here on earth.

Dumb, isn't it.
But not too dumb for flotsam and jetsam (you and G.T.) to climb right on board.
Yous is down wit dat, huh?


Just a question-
Pompous:
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious


Is that what you mean?
Yeah?
(sigh...) I'm gonna have a hard time denying that....

Not only is this universe not "designed" for ALL LIFE, life could exist elsewhere that you know-it-alls can't even recognize as life. After all, YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're still flopping like a fish out of water.
The fish example obviously went completely over your head! Not uncommon for know-it-alls.

How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic.

But keep the pompous condescension coming.

"How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic. "

Well, certainly beyond your ability for logical thinking.
And to prove how abysmally dumb your post is...
....G.T. liked it!


You got the point totally backwards! (not unusual for you, of course)
1. I'm on the side of the aisle supporting the view that a loving God created the universe, and mankind and everything else.

2. Physicist professor Lightman (see Harper's Mag article) admits that the conditions in this universe are uncomforably close to being so perfect for the support of life, all life, that it almost demands the existence of a 'Designer,' i.e., God.

3. Now, you've failed to get this point twice already...and three strikes and your out...so hold tight:
"...the potential existence of every possible kind of universe..." is the point made by the athieist physicists!!!
Your side makes up bogus universes where up is down and black is white!!!
Like ACLU lawyers, fer gosh sakes!

Get it: not my side, your side!!!

They have to hypothesize a 'multiverse' with every permutation and combination of the principles of physics. Most of 'em flying in the face of the fundamental laws of physics that have been memorialized here on earth.

Dumb, isn't it.
But not too dumb for flotsam and jetsam (you and G.T.) to climb right on board.
Yous is down wit dat, huh?


Just a question-
Pompous:
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious


Is that what you mean?
Yeah?
(sigh...) I'm gonna have a hard time denying that....

Not only is this universe not "designed" for ALL LIFE, life could exist elsewhere that you know-it-alls can't even recognize as life. After all, YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals.

"YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals."


Now that's not true, Beets!
And I can prove it!!

Right on my living room wall I have that painting on velvet of you and the three dogs playing poker!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECG9VQXysHQ]Dogs Playing Poker - YouTube[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

"How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic. "

Well, certainly beyond your ability for logical thinking.
And to prove how abysmally dumb your post is...
....G.T. liked it!


You got the point totally backwards! (not unusual for you, of course)
1. I'm on the side of the aisle supporting the view that a loving God created the universe, and mankind and everything else.

2. Physicist professor Lightman (see Harper's Mag article) admits that the conditions in this universe are uncomforably close to being so perfect for the support of life, all life, that it almost demands the existence of a 'Designer,' i.e., God.

3. Now, you've failed to get this point twice already...and three strikes and your out...so hold tight:
"...the potential existence of every possible kind of universe..." is the point made by the athieist physicists!!!
Your side makes up bogus universes where up is down and black is white!!!
Like ACLU lawyers, fer gosh sakes!

Get it: not my side, your side!!!

They have to hypothesize a 'multiverse' with every permutation and combination of the principles of physics. Most of 'em flying in the face of the fundamental laws of physics that have been memorialized here on earth.

Dumb, isn't it.
But not too dumb for flotsam and jetsam (you and G.T.) to climb right on board.
Yous is down wit dat, huh?


Just a question-
Pompous:
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious


Is that what you mean?
Yeah?
(sigh...) I'm gonna have a hard time denying that....

Not only is this universe not "designed" for ALL LIFE, life could exist elsewhere that you know-it-alls can't even recognize as life. After all, YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals.

"YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals."


Now that's not true, Beets!
And I can prove it!!

Right on my living room wall I have that painting on velvet of you and the three dogs playing poker!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECG9VQXysHQ]Dogs Playing Poker - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not only is this universe not "designed" for ALL LIFE, life could exist elsewhere that you know-it-alls can't even recognize as life. After all, YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals.

"YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals."


Now that's not true, Beets!
And I can prove it!!

Right on my living room wall I have that painting on velvet of you and the three dogs playing poker!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECG9VQXysHQ]Dogs Playing Poker - YouTube[/ame]

You...you....silver-tongued romantic, you!


Bet you send that to all the girls!

 

[koshergrl]

You're still flopping like a fish out of water.
The fish example obviously went completely over your head! Not uncommon for know-it-alls.

How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic.

But keep the pompous condescension coming.

"How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic. "

Well, certainly beyond your ability for logical thinking.
And to prove how abysmally dumb your post is...
....G.T. liked it!


You got the point totally backwards! (not unusual for you, of course)
1. I'm on the side of the aisle supporting the view that a loving God created the universe, and mankind and everything else.

2. Physicist professor Lightman (see Harper's Mag article) admits that the conditions in this universe are uncomforably close to being so perfect for the support of life, all life, that it almost demands the existence of a 'Designer,' i.e., God.

3. Now, you've failed to get this point twice already...and three strikes and your out...so hold tight:
"...the potential existence of every possible kind of universe..." is the point made by the athieist physicists!!!
Your side makes up bogus universes where up is down and black is white!!!
Like ACLU lawyers, fer gosh sakes!

Get it: not my side, your side!!!

They have to hypothesize a 'multiverse' with every permutation and combination of the principles of physics. Most of 'em flying in the face of the fundamental laws of physics that have been memorialized here on earth.

Dumb, isn't it.
But not too dumb for flotsam and jetsam (you and G.T.) to climb right on board.
Yous is down wit dat, huh?


Just a question-
Pompous:
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious


Is that what you mean?
Yeah?
(sigh...) I'm gonna have a hard time denying that....

Not only is this universe not "designed" for ALL LIFE, life could exist elsewhere that you know-it-alls can't even recognize as life. After all, YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals.

Huh?
My brain damaged terrier has more smarts than 2/3 of the posters on the site.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"How the potential existence of every possible kind of universe requires an imaginary creator making a "special" universe "designed" for our kind of life (our kind of life might not be the only kind of life) is beyond logic. "

Well, certainly beyond your ability for logical thinking.
And to prove how abysmally dumb your post is...
....G.T. liked it!


You got the point totally backwards! (not unusual for you, of course)
1. I'm on the side of the aisle supporting the view that a loving God created the universe, and mankind and everything else.

2. Physicist professor Lightman (see Harper's Mag article) admits that the conditions in this universe are uncomforably close to being so perfect for the support of life, all life, that it almost demands the existence of a 'Designer,' i.e., God.

3. Now, you've failed to get this point twice already...and three strikes and your out...so hold tight:
"...the potential existence of every possible kind of universe..." is the point made by the athieist physicists!!!
Your side makes up bogus universes where up is down and black is white!!!
Like ACLU lawyers, fer gosh sakes!

Get it: not my side, your side!!!

They have to hypothesize a 'multiverse' with every permutation and combination of the principles of physics. Most of 'em flying in the face of the fundamental laws of physics that have been memorialized here on earth.

Dumb, isn't it.
But not too dumb for flotsam and jetsam (you and G.T.) to climb right on board.
Yous is down wit dat, huh?


Just a question-
Pompous:
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious


Is that what you mean?
Yeah?
(sigh...) I'm gonna have a hard time denying that....

Not only is this universe not "designed" for ALL LIFE, life could exist elsewhere that you know-it-alls can't even recognize as life. After all, YOU can't recognize intelligence in other animals.

Huh?
My brain damaged terrier has more smarts than 2/3 of the posters on the site.

The rumor is that BeetsAndSpinach is carrying on a by-mail chess match with a porpoise...
...and he's down two pawns and a bishop.

 

[LOki]

Hawking, provided as an expert in the area, lays out both halves of the question.
The key part of the quote is exactly what I want shown:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator."

Yet we don't HAVE to suppose it had a creator, because there is no valid verifiable evidence of the existence of such a creator ... and this is most certainly true of the very specific "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" that superstitious Christian Creationist retards posit.

Now, focus like a laser: anyone who agrees with, or has quoted the 'Big Bang' is supposing a beginning...and that supposes that something or someone initiated that explosion.

Unless you can give examples of similar episodes that have no cause.
Can you?
No? You accept it based on your faith, huh?

NOT FAITH if the evidence points to a beginning. Since the evidence most certainly points to a beginning, the belief that the observable universe had a beginning IS NOT FAITH.

Got that? Let me repeat it so it can sink into your impenetrable dumb ...

Since the evidence most certainly points to a beginning, the belief that the observable universe had a beginning IS NOT FAITH.

BTW, I was familiar with the entire paragraph that you provided.

Which just demonstrates you were in fact quote-mining.

Do you understand it?

Most certainly ... and I'm certian you did too, which is why you (dishonestly) edited out the portion that clearly contradicts your point to fabricate the appearance that the "expert in the area" is in agreement with you.

It is simply the kind of nonsense that
a) atheist-scientists must mouth, or be faced with the existence of God,

What God? What is this God thing you keep referencing?

From all objective accounts, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny have no lesser claim to existence in actual reality, established in valid verifiable evidence and valid logic, than this God thing; this Creator; this Designer, you keep referencing.

or
b) the kind of prattle that folks like you are willing to accept or face the dire posibility of actually of actually thinking.

Laughable. As if the alternative you present; positing your personal all powerful, all knowing, all loving, perfectly just and perfectly good imaginary friend who agrees perfectly with you on the facts of reality, as the efficient cause of the observable universe is actually thinking.

Seriously LOLsome!

4.Here it is, again: "... neither beginning nor end..."

Now, you and the other poor souls who have a need to subscribe to your mythical 'science'...
...how about some examples, evidence, that there is anything outside of faith, that has "neither beginning nor end."

Circles. Circle have neither beginning or end.

Are you going to deny the existence of circles?

How about existence, then. Existence itself requires no beginning or end.

How about that? Are you going to deny existence, Cupcake?

Careful...if you say that 'you suppose God was always there, I'll suppose that the universe was always there...' then you are handing the argument over to me...as I have said that science and religion have this kind of faith in common: I win- in nature there is nothing with no beginning nor end.

First, demanding that you have the intellectual honesty to accept your opponent's use of your own brand of special pleading is not handing the argument over to you.

Second, in asserting the universe has no beginning or end, you have at least the benefit of evidence for the existence of the object you claim has no beginning or end; when asserting God OTOH, has no beginning or end, you have overcome the obstacle of explaining how His having no beginning or end is in any objectively real manner different than the lack of beginning or end that non-existent things exhibit.

Third, asserting that the universe had a beginning IS NOT the same thing as asserting it had a cause.

Finally, you lose. Circles. Circles have no beginning or end.

Now, if you cannot come up with said evidence, yet maintain that science is not based on faith, then it is you, not I, who is foolish.

Why should I come up with evidence that the universe had no beginning? Because you'd rather argue against that position? Sorry to break this to you Cupcake, but I say the evidence points to the universe HAVING a beginning--at least from the perspective of time.

I'd rather call you foolish than 'dishonest,' as it appears clear that you didn't
understand the Hawking quote.

It's clear that I do understand the Hawking quote, just as it is clear that you selectively edited his message to misrepresent his position as one supporting your point.

 

[LOki]

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Really? What do you think the word "ignorant" means?

Oh? You're going to "prove" what "... an ignorant fellow [I am?]

This will prove to be rich.

I don't have to provide the evidence; you will.

Oh but there is. You provide it below.

Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

Thanks for the evidence.

Despite the erroneous assertion that there's some "exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics", thank you for the validly logical conclusion as well.



You see PoliticalChic, despite your intellectually dishonest quote-mining, there's nothing about the Big Bang Theory that necessarily excludes the existence of this Creator, or Designer or God of yours, there's just nothing in it that requires one--and that's the problem that superstitious retards have with it.

Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs, and that's just retarded.

No. It just allows for such a suggestion to still be made by the superstitious, but the evidence does not suggest any such thing.

Except you fail to demonstrate ANY of my beliefs are faith.

These assertions are what makes you intellectually dishonest. You just project your intellectual paradigm, in which verifiable evidence and valid logic are irrelevant, on other people. That's retarded.

But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

No. It's because my beliefs (where founded upon evidence and valid logic) aren't retarded, and trying to demonstrate they are will only serve to expose you for a retard.

You're joking, right?

This is the best you can do?
Might as well throw in the towel.

1. "Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic
a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
Thanks for the evidence. "

Possibly you really don't know the meaning of " discrepancy" or "considered a problem for the original model" or "revised calculations" or "various reevaluation proposals" or "inconsistencies between" or "more inconsistent with observations rather than less"
or "very different from observations" or "a shaky measuring rod."


And you see the above as proof of scientific models???
If I were a Liberal, I'd be calling you a liar...but I realize that the Left has that
term trademarked.


Here, let me explain it to you in a manner that one of your ability might understand: the translation from science-speak is "Ooops!"

2. I really like the direction this argument is taking.
Let me suggest to anyone interested in judging the science vs. theology questions, take a look at the currenct Harper's (The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)) in which M.I.T. physicist Alan Lightman, makes a fascinaing admission, and then poses science's answer....

a. Professor Lightman (atheist) explains that there are fundamental forces that seem to 'fine tune' our universe so as to allow life.
"according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."

Guess where this idea is leading?

b. "...the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.” Ibid.

So, more scientists suggesting what this thread suggests, huh?

3. OKey-Loki....you're gonna like this part:
Know how guys like you, you know, those with a fear of admitting the possibility, answer this?

Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true." Ibid.

Now there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!


4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???

You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!


OK...since there is no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?

Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.

Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.

Shredded, hardly.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

But fret not little turnip, your weakness of character and paucity of rational capacity are well understood. Somewhere deep in your consciousness--in the the consciousness of every Christian Creationist--is the unavoidable self awareness that you are a fundamentally superstitious retard; lacking any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to assert the objective validity of your beliefs, you seek only to assert that the beliefs of others are just as invalid as yours. Since valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence can only further validate the beliefs of your opponents, your only recourse is the application of lies, misrepresentation, misinformation, false witness, logical fallacy, and resolute denial of the objective reality where your convictions of certainty, no matter how strong, remain valueless and utterly meaningless.

 

[LOki]

I actually wonder if profile pictures with attractive women are a good indicator for the low level of understanding that you can expect from a post. I actually feel for koshergirl, but think the OP might be worse because they actually think they have some kind of superior intelligence.

 

[edthecynic]

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Here, let me prove it:
"...none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence..."

Unless you can provide that evidence that you prattle about, you are guilty of fabrication, or superstition....

There is no such evidence.
In fact, even physicists have admitted so.

And as to "logic"...well:
Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics. Astrophysical journals report the failure of observations to confirm the grand design…

a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
c. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.

d. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I get a certain amount of amusement when folks like you attack faith, yet have beliefs based on just as much faith.


But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

"I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different."

1. Sorry, Beets...but you are wrong.

Hawking, provided as an expert in the area, lays out both halves of the question.
The key part of the quote is exactly what I want shown:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator."

2. Now, focus like a laser: anyone who agrees with, or has quoted the 'Big Bang' is supposing a beginning...and that supposes that something or someone initiated that explosion.

Unless you can give examples of similar episodes that have no cause.
Can you?
No? You accept it based on your faith, huh?

3. BTW, I was familiar with the entire paragraph that you provided.
Do you understand it?
It is simply the kind of nonsense that
a) atheist-scientists must mouth, or be faced with the existence of God, or
b) the kind of prattle that folks like you are willing to accept or face the dire posibility of actually thinking.

4.Here it is, again: "... neither beginning nor end..."

Now, you and the other poor souls who have a need to subscribe to your mythical 'science'...
...how about some examples, evidence, that there is anything outside of faith, that has "neither beginning nor end."

Careful...if you say that 'you suppose God was always there, I'll suppose that the universe was always there...' then you are handing the argument over to me...as I have said that science and religion have this kind of faith in common: I win- in nature there is nothing with no beginning nor end.

5. Now, if you cannot come up with said evidence, yet maintain that science is not based on faith, then it is you, not I, who is foolish.
I'd rather call you foolish than 'dishonest,' as it appears clear that you didn't
understand the Hawking quote.

What I love best about pompous know-it-alls is they are too stupid to know when they are making fools of themselves.

It is GRAVITY that initiated the Big Bang.

And you have again violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. That's grammar school science!

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means energy has no beginning nor end, it exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future.

 

[koshergrl]

That's what I love best about them, too, Ed, and funny but you and Loki jump to mind when I consider it!

 

[edthecynic]

That's what I love best about them, too, Ed, and funny but you and Loki jump to mind when I consider it!

You don't have to be a know-it-all to know about the Law of Conservation of Energy, AKA the FLoT, now do you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different.

"I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different."

1. Sorry, Beets...but you are wrong.

Hawking, provided as an expert in the area, lays out both halves of the question.
The key part of the quote is exactly what I want shown:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator."

2. Now, focus like a laser: anyone who agrees with, or has quoted the 'Big Bang' is supposing a beginning...and that supposes that something or someone initiated that explosion.

Unless you can give examples of similar episodes that have no cause.
Can you?
No? You accept it based on your faith, huh?

3. BTW, I was familiar with the entire paragraph that you provided.
Do you understand it?
It is simply the kind of nonsense that
a) atheist-scientists must mouth, or be faced with the existence of God, or
b) the kind of prattle that folks like you are willing to accept or face the dire posibility of actually thinking.

4.Here it is, again: "... neither beginning nor end..."

Now, you and the other poor souls who have a need to subscribe to your mythical 'science'...
...how about some examples, evidence, that there is anything outside of faith, that has "neither beginning nor end."

Careful...if you say that 'you suppose God was always there, I'll suppose that the universe was always there...' then you are handing the argument over to me...as I have said that science and religion have this kind of faith in common: I win- in nature there is nothing with no beginning nor end.

5. Now, if you cannot come up with said evidence, yet maintain that science is not based on faith, then it is you, not I, who is foolish.
I'd rather call you foolish than 'dishonest,' as it appears clear that you didn't
understand the Hawking quote.

What I love best about pompous know-it-alls is they are too stupid to know when they are making fools of themselves.

It is GRAVITY that initiated the Big Bang.

And you have again violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. That's grammar school science!

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means energy has no beginning nor end, it exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future.

Where was it before it came into existence?


The only thing that "exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future" is your bewilderment.