Why worship a god that doesn't care?

[cnm]

No. That is a scientific reality. How do you think space and time came into existence?

Haven't a clue, neither does anyone else, except those clinging to a load of old faith.

 

[cnm]

What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

Evident evidence. You have a load of old faith.

 

[ding]

But I have plenty of evidence,

Out with it. Remember, evidence is that which can be shown.

I think I asked you first. What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

 

[cnm]

"I never put complete trust or confidence in someone or something without having good reason to do so."

Faith as a good reason is not evidence.

 

[ding]

How come you're such an atheist you dismiss Apollo and Loki out of hand?

That is a child's argument.

Childish arguments are so difficult to answer honestly, aren't they? That's why they're dismissed as childish.

Do you believe in Apollo and Loki? If not, it is a childish argument. Now do you understand?

 

[cnm]

I think I asked you first. What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

I have given an expanding universe as evidence of the big bang consensus. You run away.

 

[cnm]

Do you believe in Apollo and Loki?

But you do not, therefore you are selective in your faith as well as your atheism.

 

[ding]

No. That is a scientific reality. How do you think space and time came into existence?

Haven't a clue, neither does anyone else, except those clinging to a load of old faith.

Really? They haven't a clue? You needs to tell Hawking, Guth, Linde and Vilenken that.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.



http://cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu/Vilenkin.Whitrow.pdf

Before the Big Bang?

 

[ding]

I think I asked you first. What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

I have given an expanding universe as evidence of the big bang consensus. You run away.

Is that all you have? Really? An expanding universe as evidence of the big bang consensus? That's it? You can't tell me how all the matter in the universe occupied the space of a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom?

You could have said something like, In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so. That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

But no, all we get from you is, "I have given an expanding universe as evidence of the big bang consensus." Wow, you are a deep thinker.

And you think I ran away? Did you see post #40, #43 and #44? Guess not. How about post #68? Did you see that one. It is a little more in depth than "I have given an expanding universe as evidence of the big bang consensus."

And let us not forget you claimed that no one has a clue to how space and time began, right? Seems you were wrong about that too. I can only imagine what else you are wrong about.

As far as running away, you did a great impression of that on our discussion of socialism. Do you need for me to refer you to the relevant post numbers to refresh your memory?

 

[ding]

Do you believe in Apollo and Loki?

But you do not, therefore you are selective in your faith as well as your atheism.

Again, you are making a childish argument. You don't believe in Apollo and Loki, so you are literally making an argument that you yourself do not believe. That is illogical. Please tell me that this is not the extent of your arguments. Please tell me that there is more.

 

[cnm]

Really? They haven't a clue? You needs to tell Hawking, Guth, Linde and Vilenken that.

Yeah.

As far as running away, you did a great impression of that on our discussion of socialism.

You can't even define socialism except as a religion. Which means capitalism is also a religion.

 

[cnm]

Again, you are making a childish argument. You don't believe in Apollo and Loki, so you are literally making an argument that you yourself do not believe.

I don't believe in YHWH either, so my argument is consistent, unlike yours, which selects and discards belief in sky fairies arbitrarily.

 

[cnm]

Tell me when they get to the theory of everything, then they'll have a clue.

 

[ding]

"I never put complete trust or confidence in someone or something without having good reason to do so."

Faith as a good reason is not evidence.

I have already told you that I do have evidence. You are the one who has no evidence. Where is your evidence?

 

[ding]

Really? They haven't a clue? You needs to tell Hawking, Guth, Linde and Vilenken that.

Yeah.

As far as running away, you did a great impression of that on our discussion of socialism.

You can't even define socialism except as a religion. Which means capitalism is also a religion.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe.

Seems like a pretty good description to me.

 

[ding]

Again, you are making a childish argument. You don't believe in Apollo and Loki, so you are literally making an argument that you yourself do not believe.

I don't believe in YHWH either, so my argument is consistent, unlike yours, which selects and discards belief in sky fairies arbitrarily.

No. It is not consistent. You would have to argue that you did believe in Loki and Apollo for your argument to be relevant and consistent with our disagreement in beliefs.

In our argument, I believe in the existence of God and you don't.

In your argument, I don't believe in the existence of Apollo and Loki and neither do you. We are in agreement and have no need to discuss the existence of Apollo or Loki.

Do you see the difference? Do you understand how illogical your argument is? It has no bearing on the existence of God whatsoever.

 

[ding]

Tell me when they get to the theory of everything, then they'll have a clue.

So now you are denying science? Thank you for proving that they worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. I bet if we talk long enough I can prove every line in my signature through you. You were so embarrassed by your own response that you couldn't even link it to the post you were responding to which was post #68. I don't blame you, I would have been embarrassed to make that reply too.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe.

 

[ding]

Tell me when they get to the theory of everything, then they'll have a clue.

Are we done here?

 

[cnm]

It's not a fairy tale.

So then you'll have evidence as to its validity.

 

[cnm]

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational.

You still can't define it except as a religion. Therefore to remain consistent you must define capitalism as the same. You are demented.