What is the purpose of the universe?

[Dr Grump]

That sure was vague. Empirical, peer reviewed research of what? Can you be very very specific about the type of proof you are looking for? For instance, let's say that you found a cell phone two hundred years ago. What proof would you need to prove that it's purpose was communication? Now... take that example and tell me what proof you would need to see to know what the purpose of the universe is. Fair enough?

Hey you asked the question..I'm giving you my answer.

 

[zaangalewa]

Somehow we are the universe on our own.

So do you believe that what you are made out of was created when space and time was created? Because it was.

I think a hundred, a thousand, a million or a billion years ago someone or something was able to avoid my existance, so I never had to be here. But I am here. Since about 13.82 billion years meanwhile. Since some decades I'm in interaction now. So I would say the interaction which I am is an answer to this what had happened before. Everyone is such an answer. In my special case I guess I would not be a be sad, if the answer which I am, had not to exist. I'm for example also an answer because of evil events as for example World War 2. Not a nice idea. But I trust in god on my way home. This allows me to think and to do whatever I like to think and to do, because no one is able to fall deeper than in the hands of god. In my case god is like one of this indian gods with thousand arms and hands.

No offense, but that was even more than less than helpful.

Helpful?

I am telling you that all matter and energy was created at the big bang or as I like to affectionately call it, Creation. Since then matter and energy have not been destroyed but have only changed form. The only exception to this is the loss of usable energy that we so affectionately call entropy.

"Loss of ... energy" is impossible. Nothing creates or destroys energy. And we are locally - because of the energy of the sun - in an unnormal balance between entropy and negentropy. I guess we need both processes to be alive.

Anyway all of the matter and energy in your body today, came into existence at the moment space and time were created. Happy birthday... you are 14 billion years old.

Not my fault.

So your statement that, "Somehow we are the universe on our own," is technically true. You are made from star dust. So when the Bible says, "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return," that is true too.

I'm not directly dust. I'm the interaction of dust. 20 years ago I used another dust, but the interaction is still the same. One day this interaction will stop and my body will lose the ability to bind the dust in a body. Then this dust will return to the normal existance of dust. Everyone else - except I on my own - will be able to see me die. No idea wether I on my own will really die. I don't know what I will do afterwards. I would prefer to be dead forever - but that's maybe not in the intention of my father. We will see.

 

[zaangalewa]

Somehow we are the universe on our own.

Do you agree with Professor George Wald's assertion

No idea.

[that that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create?

I don't know. The austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger made clear to me: Our way to see the world has elementary problems. Entangled particles for example are a common system, although they exist far from each other. A change in one of this particles changes also immediatelly something in the other particles wherever they are - even if they are billions of lightyears far away. So I'm not sure about wether space and time is not existing in other ways than we imagine. Zeilinger said for example also "In the beginning was the word". As far as I understand he thinks informations created everything, when the universe appeared.

"“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

Truth is always true. Everyone can start at every point and will find everywhere truth - if he's interested in doing so.

The consciousness problem

Is not really a problem for me. I don't have any idea what's confusing in this context. I don't see a big difference between animals and human beings.

was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see?

Ask the fly, which doubts about.

It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting?

Yes. And the fly tastes wonderful.

There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

Depends in the context. "Spirit" and "Consciousness" are by the way not the same. In our constitution for example exists a spirit - although there lives no one inside. Part of my person are for example lots of stories I heard from and about lots of people with lots of different ideas and ways to live. Sometimes I discuss with my dogs even about "komplexe Zahlen". I use the german language because they understand German, while they have to translate other languages. But to be honest: They are not very clever in mathematics.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature.

Life is unbelievable tender and weak. That's why we live in fear the sky could fall on our head.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.

I don't see any substance for this form of belief. Life is nearly impossible - and there seems to be a big amount of possibilities for life. What is 0*∞ ? I don't know. 1 for sure. But greater? Why should it be greater? Even on our own planet under the very best conditions are big death zones and there's existing even a killer species, which kills everything. We call it "homo sapiens sapiens". A murderous species, which is much more dangerous than earthquakes or mosquitos.

Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[JW Frogen]

I am not so sure the universe has a purpose at all.

Maybye it all is just random is, rather than nothingness.

Random, but it is what it is.

Still the universe made the mistake of giving me thought and free will, so my purpose is to love.

Love every one last one of you, such and as much as I can.

And when I can't love you cocksuckers, I drink.

That, is the purpose of the universe, as I see it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Purpose is merely a word, a concept, a human construct. Because of how our thinking functions and how lingusitics work, we can come up with statements and questions that seem to make sense.

 

[Mudda]

FARTSMOKE ALERT! You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you?

Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this, I can only assume that you are the simple one and you are not intelligent enough to discuss this because you don't understand it or that you can't because what I am writing is true. So, yes, I will keep repeating it. After all, it is the truth and I really do enjoy your intellectually stimulating responses to my argument. I think it reflect the depth of your intellect quite nicely.

"Predestined" means that someone put intelligent beings into the mix on purpose. You have shown no proof to support your theory.

I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?

It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.

Of course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might have to rethink your theory.

Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.

Sorry, I'm not gay.

Actually, that was the first time that I've seen that link, some of the stuff was a little dubious, but other stuff needs further investigating, because for example, if the universe is 13 billion years old, it can't be 26 billion light years across (which it is claimed to be), and I've always had a problem with that, let alone some of the other stuff in the article. Me, as an agnostic who admits that the search for the truth is ongoing, can go with new evidence to a potentially whole new theory, which I find exiting, that the universe might me something completely different from what we thought it was. Cool!
Whereas you seem stuck in your unworkable theory, that gets more unworkable as science moves on...

 

[zaangalewa]

I am not so sure the universe has a purpose at all.

Maybye it all is just random is, rather than nothingness.

Random, but it is what it is.

Still the universe made the mistake of giving me thought and free will, so my purpose is to love.

Love every one last one of you, such and as much as I can.

And when I can't love you cocksuckers, I drink.

That, is the purpose of the universe, as I see it.

¿Mistake? Don't be sad: Not everyone has a nice tail.

 

[zaangalewa]

Purpose is merely a word, a concept, a human construct. Because of how our thinking functions and how lingusitics work, we can come up with statements and questions that seem to make sense.

So what do you suggest? Not to use human constructs as for example not to think and not to speak? I dnäT have any idea what thsi engohs

I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?

It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.

Of course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might have to rethink your theory.

Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.

Sorry, I'm not gay.

Actually, that was the first time that I've seen that link, some of the stuff was a little dubious, but other stuff needs further investigating, because for example, if the universe is 13 billion years old, it can't be 26 billion light years across (which it is claimed to be),

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the size is about 46.6 billion lightyears.

and I've always had a problem with that, let alone some of the other stuff in the article. Me, as an agnostic who admits that the search for the truth is ongoing, can go with new evidence to a potentially whole new theory, which I find exiting, that the universe might me something completely different from what we thought it was. Cool!
Whereas you seem stuck in your unworkable theory, that gets more unworkable as science moves on...

 

[Mudda]

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the size is about 46.6 billion lightyears.

Don't you mean 27.6 billion lightyears across? Otherwise, how did you get to 46.6?

 

[ding]

I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?

It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.

Of course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might have to rethink your theory.

Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.

Sorry, I'm not gay.

Actually, that was the first time that I've seen that link, some of the stuff was a little dubious, but other stuff needs further investigating, because for example, if the universe is 13 billion years old, it can't be 26 billion light years across (which it is claimed to be), and I've always had a problem with that, let alone some of the other stuff in the article. Me, as an agnostic who admits that the search for the truth is ongoing, can go with new evidence to a potentially whole new theory, which I find exiting, that the universe might me something completely different from what we thought it was. Cool!
Whereas you seem stuck in your unworkable theory, that gets more unworkable as science moves on...

And I'm sorry for being so mean. You are ok. Clearly you are intelligent. Confused, but intelligent nonetheless.

So let me break this down for you. If you don't want to believe what I believe, don't. It's that simple. Really. But don't expect me to care about convincing you just because you believe yourself to be superior and because you delude yourself into believing your arguments are superior. They're not. Between you and all the other militant atheists who demand proof and the resident philosophers who say there is none, fuck off. And I mean this in the nicest way possible too. I'm going to do mine thing and ya'll can do your thing. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

I am not so sure the universe has a purpose at all.

Maybye it all is just random is, rather than nothingness.

Random, but it is what it is.

Still the universe made the mistake of giving me thought and free will, so my purpose is to love.

Love every one last one of you, such and as much as I can.

And when I can't love you cocksuckers, I drink.

That, is the purpose of the universe, as I see it.

Sir, that is the greatest post of all time. You are the winner!

 

[ding]

Somehow we are the universe on our own.

Do you agree with Professor George Wald's assertion

No idea.

[that that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create?

I don't know. The austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger made clear to me: Our way to see the world has elementary problems. Entangled particles for example are a common system, although they exist far from each other. A change in one of this particles changes also immediatelly something in the other particles wherever they are - even if they are billions of lightyears far away. So I'm not sure about wether space and time is not existing in other ways than we imagine. Zeilinger said for example also "In the beginning was the word". As far as I understand he thinks informations created everything, when the universe appeared.

"“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

Truth is always true. Everyone can start at every point and will find everywhere truth - if he's interested in doing so.

The consciousness problem

Is not really a problem for me. I don't have any idea what's confusing in this context. I don't see a big difference between animals and human beings.

was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see?

Ask the fly, which doubts about.

It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting?

Yes. And the fly tastes wonderful.

There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

Depends in the context. "Spirit" and "Consciousness" are by the way not the same. In our constitution for example exists a spirit - although there lives no one inside. Part of my person are for example lots of stories I heard from and about lots of people with lots of different ideas and ways to live. Sometimes I discuss with my dogs even about "komplexe Zahlen". I use the german language because they understand German, while they have to translate other languages. But to be honest: They are not very clever in mathematics.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature.

Life is unbelievable tender and weak. That's why we live in fear the sky could fall on our head.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.

I don't see any substance for this form of belief. Life is nearly impossible - and there seems to be a big amount of possibilities for life. What is 0*∞ ? I don't know. 1 for sure. But greater? Why should it be greater? Even on our own planet under the very best conditions are big death zones and there's existing even a killer species, which kills everything. We call it "homo sapiens sapiens". A murderous species, which is much more dangerous than earthquakes or mosquitos.

Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Now that was awesome. Wow. I believe that everything is connected and that like every phase before it, a leap will be made in consciousness and consciences. But only after we have gone through the conflict and confusion process which plays such a prominent role in discovering objective truth or as I like to affectionately call it reality / existence. Diversity of thought, word and action play a prominent role in the process. Not everyone will get there, but the rewards in this lifetime are great for those that do. So while everyone else becomes discouraged by the horrors around us, I just smile and realize that that is part of the process that is required to grow the kind of fruit He is growing.

 

[Mudda]

It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.

Of course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might have to rethink your theory.

Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.

Sorry, I'm not gay.

Actually, that was the first time that I've seen that link, some of the stuff was a little dubious, but other stuff needs further investigating, because for example, if the universe is 13 billion years old, it can't be 26 billion light years across (which it is claimed to be), and I've always had a problem with that, let alone some of the other stuff in the article. Me, as an agnostic who admits that the search for the truth is ongoing, can go with new evidence to a potentially whole new theory, which I find exiting, that the universe might me something completely different from what we thought it was. Cool!
Whereas you seem stuck in your unworkable theory, that gets more unworkable as science moves on...

And I'm sorry for being so mean. You are ok. Clearly you are intelligent. Confused, but intelligent nonetheless.

So let me break this down for you. If you don't want to believe what I believe, don't. It's that simple. Really. But don't expect me to care about convincing you just because you believe yourself to be superior and because you delude yourself into believing your arguments are superior. They're not. Between you and all the other militant atheists who demand proof and the resident philosophers who say there is none, fuck off. And I mean this in the nicest way possible too. I'm going to do mine thing and ya'll can do your thing. Fair enough?

All I ever did was ask you for proof of your theories, and you couldn't provide anything real, so now you tell me to fuck off. Wow! What a ringing endorsement for your theories, you give up without having shown any real, scientific, peer reviewed proof. At least you know where you stand: unable to prove what you say. I would say that I've taught you something useful, wouldn't you say?

 

[ding]

Of course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might have to rethink your theory.

Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.

Sorry, I'm not gay.

Actually, that was the first time that I've seen that link, some of the stuff was a little dubious, but other stuff needs further investigating, because for example, if the universe is 13 billion years old, it can't be 26 billion light years across (which it is claimed to be), and I've always had a problem with that, let alone some of the other stuff in the article. Me, as an agnostic who admits that the search for the truth is ongoing, can go with new evidence to a potentially whole new theory, which I find exiting, that the universe might me something completely different from what we thought it was. Cool!
Whereas you seem stuck in your unworkable theory, that gets more unworkable as science moves on...

And I'm sorry for being so mean. You are ok. Clearly you are intelligent. Confused, but intelligent nonetheless.

So let me break this down for you. If you don't want to believe what I believe, don't. It's that simple. Really. But don't expect me to care about convincing you just because you believe yourself to be superior and because you delude yourself into believing your arguments are superior. They're not. Between you and all the other militant atheists who demand proof and the resident philosophers who say there is none, fuck off. And I mean this in the nicest way possible too. I'm going to do mine thing and ya'll can do your thing. Fair enough?

All I ever did was ask you for proof of your theories, and you couldn't provide anything real, so now you tell me to fuck off. Wow! What a ringing endorsement for your theories, you give up without having shown any real, scientific, peer reviewed proof. At least you know where you stand: unable to prove what you say. I would say that I've taught you something useful, wouldn't you say?

You see... there you go again. If that's the case, then what are you still doing here?

 

[ding]

"Loss of ... energy" is impossible. Nothing creates or destroys energy.

That is technically true, but there is a cost for every energy to mass and mass to energy exchange. Given enough exchanges (i.e. infinite / eternal universe) there would be no usable energy / mass left. So in effect, entropy is the death of matter / energy so to speak. This is the easy way to know that the universe did have a beginning.

 

[ding]

I'm not directly dust. I'm the interaction of dust. 20 years ago I used another dust, but the interaction is still the same. One day this interaction will stop and my body will lose the ability to bind the dust in a body. Then this dust will return to the normal existance of dust. Everyone else - except I on my own - will be able to see me die. No idea wether I on my own will really die. I don't know what I will do afterwards. I would prefer to be dead forever - but that's maybe not in the intention of my father. We will see.

The matter and energy that make up you were created when space and time came into existence. Through the laws of nature which also came into existence at the time space and time were created that matter has evolved and reformed itself into you and everything else inside the box. Along that journey, that matter was at one time a star. That star died and created elements beyond hydrogen and helium. That process repeated itself trillions of times until all the elements and compounds that we see were formed. Therefore, at one time or another, the matter that makes up you did exist as matter that was a star and subsequently star dust. Probably trillions of times.

 

[Mudda]

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might have to rethink your theory.

Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.

Sorry, I'm not gay.

Actually, that was the first time that I've seen that link, some of the stuff was a little dubious, but other stuff needs further investigating, because for example, if the universe is 13 billion years old, it can't be 26 billion light years across (which it is claimed to be), and I've always had a problem with that, let alone some of the other stuff in the article. Me, as an agnostic who admits that the search for the truth is ongoing, can go with new evidence to a potentially whole new theory, which I find exiting, that the universe might me something completely different from what we thought it was. Cool!
Whereas you seem stuck in your unworkable theory, that gets more unworkable as science moves on...

And I'm sorry for being so mean. You are ok. Clearly you are intelligent. Confused, but intelligent nonetheless.

So let me break this down for you. If you don't want to believe what I believe, don't. It's that simple. Really. But don't expect me to care about convincing you just because you believe yourself to be superior and because you delude yourself into believing your arguments are superior. They're not. Between you and all the other militant atheists who demand proof and the resident philosophers who say there is none, fuck off. And I mean this in the nicest way possible too. I'm going to do mine thing and ya'll can do your thing. Fair enough?

All I ever did was ask you for proof of your theories, and you couldn't provide anything real, so now you tell me to fuck off. Wow! What a ringing endorsement for your theories, you give up without having shown any real, scientific, peer reviewed proof. At least you know where you stand: unable to prove what you say. I would say that I've taught you something useful, wouldn't you say?

You see... there you go again. If that's the case, then what are you still doing here?

A) I was here first.
B) There are other noobs that need my help.

 

[there4eyeM]

Objective proof of subjective perceptions is an oxymoron.

 

[ding]

Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.

Sorry, I'm not gay.

Actually, that was the first time that I've seen that link, some of the stuff was a little dubious, but other stuff needs further investigating, because for example, if the universe is 13 billion years old, it can't be 26 billion light years across (which it is claimed to be), and I've always had a problem with that, let alone some of the other stuff in the article. Me, as an agnostic who admits that the search for the truth is ongoing, can go with new evidence to a potentially whole new theory, which I find exiting, that the universe might me something completely different from what we thought it was. Cool!
Whereas you seem stuck in your unworkable theory, that gets more unworkable as science moves on...

And I'm sorry for being so mean. You are ok. Clearly you are intelligent. Confused, but intelligent nonetheless.

So let me break this down for you. If you don't want to believe what I believe, don't. It's that simple. Really. But don't expect me to care about convincing you just because you believe yourself to be superior and because you delude yourself into believing your arguments are superior. They're not. Between you and all the other militant atheists who demand proof and the resident philosophers who say there is none, fuck off. And I mean this in the nicest way possible too. I'm going to do mine thing and ya'll can do your thing. Fair enough?

All I ever did was ask you for proof of your theories, and you couldn't provide anything real, so now you tell me to fuck off. Wow! What a ringing endorsement for your theories, you give up without having shown any real, scientific, peer reviewed proof. At least you know where you stand: unable to prove what you say. I would say that I've taught you something useful, wouldn't you say?

You see... there you go again. If that's the case, then what are you still doing here?

A) I was here first.
B) There are other noobs that need my help.

A) No, I'm pretty sure you need me despite your rationalization
B) You are soooo altruistic, lol, but we both know better

 

[ding]

Objective proof of subjective perceptions is an oxymoron.

One is either objective or he is not. If he is objective then he has no subjective perceptions. Let's take slavery as an example, ok? There was a time when some believed slavery was wrong and some believed it was right. They both had their "reasons" but one group had rationalized their reasons (i.e. subjective) and the other had not. We know today that slavery is wrong, that it was always wrong and will always be wrong. So you can you explain to me using this example how you believe objective proof of this subjective perception is an oxymoron? Because maybe I am not following the point you are trying to make.