Why would a God even need a hell?

[Mudda]

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you said. I am explaining to you that you are arguing that you do know when your belief is that you don't know.

You can explain that last sentence to me.

Sure. You are an agnostic. By definition, you don't know. So when I explain the evidence for God to you, your rejection of it is an admission that you do know.

I go by the science. You haven't shown ANY.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know Mudda, the only reason I'm still reading this thread is because of the way you keep tearing DINGbat apart.

It's wonderfully funny to watch.

 

[ding]

You know Mudda, the only reason I'm still reading this thread is because of the way you keep tearing DINGbat apart.

It's wonderfully funny to watch.

I couldn't be happier for you. Your vicarious participation speaks volumes.

 

[ding]

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you said. I am explaining to you that you are arguing that you do know when your belief is that you don't know.

You can explain that last sentence to me.

Sure. You are an agnostic. By definition, you don't know. So when I explain the evidence for God to you, your rejection of it is an admission that you do know.

I go by the science. You haven't shown ANY.

Really? Can you explain how you got by the science?

 

[Mudda]

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you said. I am explaining to you that you are arguing that you do know when your belief is that you don't know.

You can explain that last sentence to me.

Sure. You are an agnostic. By definition, you don't know. So when I explain the evidence for God to you, your rejection of it is an admission that you do know.

I go by the science. You haven't shown ANY.

Really? Can you explain how you got by the science?

It was easy, you had none.

 

[ding]

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you said. I am explaining to you that you are arguing that you do know when your belief is that you don't know.

You can explain that last sentence to me.

Sure. You are an agnostic. By definition, you don't know. So when I explain the evidence for God to you, your rejection of it is an admission that you do know.

I go by the science. You haven't shown ANY.

Really? Can you explain how you got by the science?

It was easy, you had none.

So you don't believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature? That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes in life forces and souls. Unless you believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature then you must believe they arose through a special creative act of God. Are you a creationist?

 

[Mudda]

You can explain that last sentence to me.

Sure. You are an agnostic. By definition, you don't know. So when I explain the evidence for God to you, your rejection of it is an admission that you do know.

I go by the science. You haven't shown ANY.

Really? Can you explain how you got by the science?

It was easy, you had none.

So you don't believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature? That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes in life forces and souls. Unless you believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature then you must believe they arose through a special creative act of God. Are you a creationist?

What does beings arising through the laws of nature have to do with a god? And no, not through an act of god, but through an act of aliens, most likely.

 

[ding]

Sure. You are an agnostic. By definition, you don't know. So when I explain the evidence for God to you, your rejection of it is an admission that you do know.

I go by the science. You haven't shown ANY.

Really? Can you explain how you got by the science?

It was easy, you had none.

So you don't believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature? That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes in life forces and souls. Unless you believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature then you must believe they arose through a special creative act of God. Are you a creationist?

What does beings arising through the laws of nature have to do with a god? And no, not through an act of god, but through an act of aliens, most likely.

That intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. That beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before time and space. That you were present at the time space and time were created and all matter in the universe is entangled. That cause and effect tell us that there is reason and purpose. That the evolution of matter tells us that the purpose of the universe is to create consciousness thus the universe knows itself and becomes self aware thus proving what I said that intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[Mudda]

I go by the science. You haven't shown ANY.

Really? Can you explain how you got by the science?

It was easy, you had none.

So you don't believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature? That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes in life forces and souls. Unless you believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature then you must believe they arose through a special creative act of God. Are you a creationist?

What does beings arising through the laws of nature have to do with a god? And no, not through an act of god, but through an act of aliens, most likely.

That intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. That beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before time and space. That you were present at the time space and time were created and all matter in the universe is entangled. That cause and effect tell us that there is reason and purpose. That the evolution of matter tells us that the purpose of the universe is to create consciousness this the universe knows itself and becomes self aware thus proving what I said that intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Nice personal opinion. Can you back that up with science?

 

[ding]

Really? Can you explain how you got by the science?

It was easy, you had none.

So you don't believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature? That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes in life forces and souls. Unless you believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature then you must believe they arose through a special creative act of God. Are you a creationist?

What does beings arising through the laws of nature have to do with a god? And no, not through an act of god, but through an act of aliens, most likely.

That intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. That beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before time and space. That you were present at the time space and time were created and all matter in the universe is entangled. That cause and effect tell us that there is reason and purpose. That the evolution of matter tells us that the purpose of the universe is to create consciousness this the universe knows itself and becomes self aware thus proving what I said that intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Nice personal opinion. Can you back that up with science?

Science backs up everything I just wrote. You are rejecting science despite your claim that you are looking for scientific proof. So not only do you violate the definition of agnosticism by denying what you claim you don't know, you are doing so against overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you have anything at all besides personal preference because you sure as hell have not mad a scientific argument.

 

[Mudda]

It was easy, you had none.

So you don't believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature? That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes in life forces and souls. Unless you believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature then you must believe they arose through a special creative act of God. Are you a creationist?

What does beings arising through the laws of nature have to do with a god? And no, not through an act of god, but through an act of aliens, most likely.

That intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. That beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before time and space. That you were present at the time space and time were created and all matter in the universe is entangled. That cause and effect tell us that there is reason and purpose. That the evolution of matter tells us that the purpose of the universe is to create consciousness this the universe knows itself and becomes self aware thus proving what I said that intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Nice personal opinion. Can you back that up with science?

Science backs up everything I just wrote. You are rejecting science despite your claim that you are looking for scientific proof. So not only do you violate the definition of agnosticism by denying what you claim you don't know, you are doing so against overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you have anything at all besides personal preference because you sure as hell have not mad a scientific argument.

If science backs up what you said, provide links to scientific sites that explain scientifically your position. Otherwise, you'll still have nothing.

 

[ding]

So you don't believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature? That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes in life forces and souls. Unless you believe that beings that know and create arose through the laws of nature then you must believe they arose through a special creative act of God. Are you a creationist?

What does beings arising through the laws of nature have to do with a god? And no, not through an act of god, but through an act of aliens, most likely.

That intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. That beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before time and space. That you were present at the time space and time were created and all matter in the universe is entangled. That cause and effect tell us that there is reason and purpose. That the evolution of matter tells us that the purpose of the universe is to create consciousness this the universe knows itself and becomes self aware thus proving what I said that intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Nice personal opinion. Can you back that up with science?

Science backs up everything I just wrote. You are rejecting science despite your claim that you are looking for scientific proof. So not only do you violate the definition of agnosticism by denying what you claim you don't know, you are doing so against overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you have anything at all besides personal preference because you sure as hell have not mad a scientific argument.

If science backs up what you said, provide links to scientific sites that explain scientifically your position. Otherwise, you'll still have nothing.

Can you tell me which part you specifically are challenging? Is it that the universe had a beginning? Is it that the matter that makes up who you are was created when space and time were created? Is this what you re disputing?

 

[Mudda]

What does beings arising through the laws of nature have to do with a god? And no, not through an act of god, but through an act of aliens, most likely.

That intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. That beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before time and space. That you were present at the time space and time were created and all matter in the universe is entangled. That cause and effect tell us that there is reason and purpose. That the evolution of matter tells us that the purpose of the universe is to create consciousness this the universe knows itself and becomes self aware thus proving what I said that intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Nice personal opinion. Can you back that up with science?

Science backs up everything I just wrote. You are rejecting science despite your claim that you are looking for scientific proof. So not only do you violate the definition of agnosticism by denying what you claim you don't know, you are doing so against overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you have anything at all besides personal preference because you sure as hell have not mad a scientific argument.

If science backs up what you said, provide links to scientific sites that explain scientifically your position. Otherwise, you'll still have nothing.

Can you tell me which part you specifically are challenging? Is it that the universe had a beginning? Is it that the matter that makes up who you are was created when space and time were created? Is this what you re disputing?

I'm challenging your whole statement for lack of scientific back-up.

 

[ding]

That intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. That beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before time and space. That you were present at the time space and time were created and all matter in the universe is entangled. That cause and effect tell us that there is reason and purpose. That the evolution of matter tells us that the purpose of the universe is to create consciousness this the universe knows itself and becomes self aware thus proving what I said that intelligence creates intelligence because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Nice personal opinion. Can you back that up with science?

Science backs up everything I just wrote. You are rejecting science despite your claim that you are looking for scientific proof. So not only do you violate the definition of agnosticism by denying what you claim you don't know, you are doing so against overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you have anything at all besides personal preference because you sure as hell have not mad a scientific argument.

If science backs up what you said, provide links to scientific sites that explain scientifically your position. Otherwise, you'll still have nothing.

Can you tell me which part you specifically are challenging? Is it that the universe had a beginning? Is it that the matter that makes up who you are was created when space and time were created? Is this what you re disputing?

I'm challenging your whole statement for lack of scientific back-up.

The second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, we would be in thermal equilibrium.

So does Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So does the red shift.

So does background radiation.

The only real question is how big of an idiot do you want to be?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[Mudda]

Nice personal opinion. Can you back that up with science?

Science backs up everything I just wrote. You are rejecting science despite your claim that you are looking for scientific proof. So not only do you violate the definition of agnosticism by denying what you claim you don't know, you are doing so against overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you have anything at all besides personal preference because you sure as hell have not mad a scientific argument.

If science backs up what you said, provide links to scientific sites that explain scientifically your position. Otherwise, you'll still have nothing.

Can you tell me which part you specifically are challenging? Is it that the universe had a beginning? Is it that the matter that makes up who you are was created when space and time were created? Is this what you re disputing?

I'm challenging your whole statement for lack of scientific back-up.

The second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, we would be in thermal equilibrium.

So does Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So does the red shift.

So does background radiation.

The only real question is how big of an idiot do you want to be?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

We went through this already. You have nothing. Your link doesn't prove that god made the universe. CERN never claimed that anyways.

 

[ding]

Science backs up everything I just wrote. You are rejecting science despite your claim that you are looking for scientific proof. So not only do you violate the definition of agnosticism by denying what you claim you don't know, you are doing so against overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you have anything at all besides personal preference because you sure as hell have not mad a scientific argument.

If science backs up what you said, provide links to scientific sites that explain scientifically your position. Otherwise, you'll still have nothing.

Can you tell me which part you specifically are challenging? Is it that the universe had a beginning? Is it that the matter that makes up who you are was created when space and time were created? Is this what you re disputing?

I'm challenging your whole statement for lack of scientific back-up.

The second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, we would be in thermal equilibrium.

So does Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So does the red shift.

So does background radiation.

The only real question is how big of an idiot do you want to be?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

We went through this already. You have nothing. Your link doesn't prove that god made the universe. CERN never claimed that anyways.

I know it flusters you to believe that the universe had a beginning like the Bible tells us, but you are going to have to face the facts that science tells us that it did.

 

[Mudda]

If science backs up what you said, provide links to scientific sites that explain scientifically your position. Otherwise, you'll still have nothing.

Can you tell me which part you specifically are challenging? Is it that the universe had a beginning? Is it that the matter that makes up who you are was created when space and time were created? Is this what you re disputing?

I'm challenging your whole statement for lack of scientific back-up.

The second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, we would be in thermal equilibrium.

So does Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So does the red shift.

So does background radiation.

The only real question is how big of an idiot do you want to be?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

We went through this already. You have nothing. Your link doesn't prove that god made the universe. CERN never claimed that anyways.

I know it flusters you to believe that the universe had a beginning like the Bible tells us, but you are going to have to face the facts that science tells us that it did.

We both know that you never proved anything. Sober up already.

 

[ding]

Can you tell me which part you specifically are challenging? Is it that the universe had a beginning? Is it that the matter that makes up who you are was created when space and time were created? Is this what you re disputing?

I'm challenging your whole statement for lack of scientific back-up.

The second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, we would be in thermal equilibrium.

So does Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So does the red shift.

So does background radiation.

The only real question is how big of an idiot do you want to be?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

We went through this already. You have nothing. Your link doesn't prove that god made the universe. CERN never claimed that anyways.

I know it flusters you to believe that the universe had a beginning like the Bible tells us, but you are going to have to face the facts that science tells us that it did.

We both know that you never proved anything. Sober up already.

lol. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

 

[Mudda]

I'm challenging your whole statement for lack of scientific back-up.

The second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, we would be in thermal equilibrium.

So does Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So does the red shift.

So does background radiation.

The only real question is how big of an idiot do you want to be?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

We went through this already. You have nothing. Your link doesn't prove that god made the universe. CERN never claimed that anyways.

I know it flusters you to believe that the universe had a beginning like the Bible tells us, but you are going to have to face the facts that science tells us that it did.

We both know that you never proved anything. Sober up already.

lol. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

You don't prove anything by talking, you prove what you say by backing it up with links to real science that actually back up exactly what you say. But since we've been over this already several times, then we must conclude that you know you have nothing so you don't even try to link anything properly. Time to give up brah.

 

[ding]

The second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, we would be in thermal equilibrium.

So does Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So does the red shift.

So does background radiation.

The only real question is how big of an idiot do you want to be?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

We went through this already. You have nothing. Your link doesn't prove that god made the universe. CERN never claimed that anyways.

I know it flusters you to believe that the universe had a beginning like the Bible tells us, but you are going to have to face the facts that science tells us that it did.

We both know that you never proved anything. Sober up already.

lol. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

You don't prove anything by talking, you prove what you say by backing it up with links to real science that actually back up exactly what you say. But since we've been over this already several times, then we must conclude that you know you have nothing so you don't even try to link anything properly. Time to give up brah.

I just gave you real science.

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium