Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Singularity doesn't befuddle me. I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er. Atheists are usually wrong.
Who’s we? Religionary thinking is not thinking at all. It’s submitting to mind numbing indoctrination.I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.
"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"
It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true. It's not. How do I know? It violates the laws of physics. You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.
Singularity doesn't befuddle me. I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er. Atheists are usually wrong.
What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.
and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around
God has provided an answer for you. He and the creationists have the last word and lol
Evidence will never overcome obstinance.
we have the last LAUGH
Singularity doesn't befuddle me. I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er. Atheists are usually wrong.
Here's a proof of the existence of singularities ... the one by Nobel Prize winning Roger Penrose ... point to the error please ... show us the lie ...
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's the liar who screams "liar" first ... you should know that from your Bible ...
The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that. If God created the earth and all living things in six days, and the sun, moon, and stars -- by which we ultimately measure time -- didn't exist until the fourth day of creation, clearly those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.We are the conservative and science users who have discovered science backs up the Bible (Genesis, even though it's not a science book).
God is omnipotent and as such often referred to with capitalized masculine pronouns. Weakness and effeminacy cannot be named among the traits of the Almighty. All the same, the Bible makes it clear that when God created man, (i.e., "the human") in His own image, He created the female human, perfectly as well as the male human, in His own image."God" could be just as much a female as an male, but more likely the Creator would have no gender/sex.
And the Biblical "Gawd" appears upon the stage of human history many centuries after other gawds and gawdesses have been presented. In many other parts of the world other than the Middle East region.God is omnipotent and as such often referred to with capitalized masculine pronouns. Weakness and effeminacy cannot be named among the traits of the Almighty. All the same, the Bible makes it clear that when God created man, (i.e., "the human") in His own image, He created the female human, perfectly as well as the male human, in His own image."God" could be just as much a female as an male, but more likely the Creator would have no gender/sex.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:27 - King James Version
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.www.biblegateway.com
STILL no proof from youand AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around
God has provided an answer for you. He and the creationists have the last word and lol
Evidence will never overcome obstinance.
we have the last LAUGH
I wouldn't call screaming in pain forever laughing.
That's so silly.The laws of physics clearly are not inviolate, except in our visible universe, absent some supernatural intervention. Since God made those laws, He is clearly outside them, not subject to them.
Of course the creation of the Universe violates the known laws of physics because God designed all of them at the Beginning. Genesis 1:1 has, to the best of our knowledge today, been validated by the most sophisticated science available. Still, we are just children in the great scheme of things.
The hyper-religious suffer from mind numbing indoctrination.Who’s we? Religionary thinking is not thinking at all. It’s submitting to mind numbing indoctrination.I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.
"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"
It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true. It's not. How do I know? It violates the laws of physics. You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.
Singularity doesn't befuddle me. I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er. Atheists are usually wrong.
What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.
We are the conservative and science users who have discovered science backs up the Bible (Genesis, even though it's not a science book).
To the contrary, "mind numbing indoctrination" is evolution, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, liberalism, and more since the 1850s. People were swayed by Satan into atheistic science and religion and choosing to go the hell thinking that is scientific. It really is wrong and more of the stupid choice, but that's how mind numbing indoctrination works.
What's mind numbing to me is how the libs were easily swayed and now believe they know everything dealing with science when they have no evidence and no backing by the scientific method. They were fooled by natural selection which God created, but Satan used to fool the evolutionists.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.3.8. Hence, time began to exist.3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.3.11. The universe is a material existent.3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.
Singularity doesn't befuddle me. I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er. Atheists are usually wrong.
Here's a proof of the existence of singularities ... the one by Nobel Prize winning Roger Penrose ... point to the error please ... show us the lie ...
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
It's the liar who screams "liar" first ... you should know that from your Bible ...
A lie is still a lie not dependent upon who screamed, "liar" first.
Anyway, using the fallacy of authoritarianism does not make Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems valid. It's been shown that "accelerated expansion of the Universe with negative Λ are invalid because they are based upon demonstrably false foundations relating to Einstein’s field equations, trapped surfaces, and the cosmological constant."
Care to try again?
Hence a Line is the one that best fits the chain of logic presented so far in this scenario~thesis.
Who has no logic you Always Wrong NUMB NUTS?You have presented no scenario or thesis.
Humans build cars but we are not cars. God made the universe, but that does not make Him one with it. You posit utter nonsense. There is no logic to it whatsoever.
The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.
those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.
Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.
For further consideration;
Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II Fighter Pilot
by
Andrea Leininger,
Bruce Leininger,
Ken Gross (Contributor),
Carol Bowman (Foreword)
...
This is the story of James Leininger, who-- a little more than two weeks after his second birthday-- began having blood-curdling nightmares that just would not stop. When James began screaming out recurring phrases like, "Plane on fire! Little man can't get out!" the Leiningers finally admitted that they truly had to take notice.
When details of planes and war tragedies no two-year-old boy could know continued-- even in stark daylight-- Bruce and Andrea Leininger began to realize that this was an incredible situation. SOUL SURVIVOR is the story of how the Leiningers pieced together what their son was communicating and eventually discovered that he was reliving the past life of World War II fighter pilot James Huston. As Bruce Leininger struggled to understand what was happening to his son, he also uncovered details of James Huston's life-- and death-- as a pilot that will fascinate military buffs everywhere.
In SOUL SURVIVOR, we are taken for a gripping ride as the Leiningers' belief system is shaken to the core, and both of these families come to know a little boy who, against all odds and even in the face of true skeptics, harbors the soul of this man who died long ago.
...
Soul Survivor
This is the story of James Leininger, who-- a little more than two weeks after his second birthday-- began having blood-curdling nightmar...www.goodreads.com
