God created the Big Bang
BURT
argument against it.
Mitch Raemsch
John Locke
wrote:
>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>argument against it.
>
There's no truth in region and certainly no answers. That's why we
have science.
---------------------------------------------------------------
""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-- Thomas Paine
Inertial
news:1f0f1669-d5e6-4b43...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>argument against it.
Keep your religious claptrap out of physics forums. And you statement above
makes no sense
Uncle Vic
Square god, round hole. Deal.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"REAL science is proving what the Bible has said all along."
--AllSeeing-I 9/12/10
Davej
>
> Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> argument against it.
>
Try reading Exodus 20-31. GAWD supposedly said all that stupid crap.
Religion is a reeking load of shit.
Olrik
Fruit Salad
Fresh summer fruits go perfectly with the Fruit Cream Dressing, making a
luscious dessert that's easier on the waistline than traditional fat
loaded cakes or pies.
Ingredients:
2 cups fresh seedless grapes , whole or cut depending on size
4 cups melon balls, cantaloupe or honeydew
4 cups nectarines or peaches, peeled & sliced
2 cups fresh blueberries
2 cups fresh strawberries
2 cups fresh pineapple chunks
1 cup sliced kiwi fruit
Directions:
1. Combine all fruits and chill.
2. Serve with Fruit Cream Dressing (recipe below).
Fruit Cream Dressing:
Ingredients:
1 (8-ounce) package cream cheese, softened
1 cup powdered sugar
1 cup whipping cream
1/4 cup granulated sugar
Juice from 1 lemon
Pineapple juice
Directions:
1. Soften cream cheese, whip with powdered sugar.
2. In a separate bowl, combine whipping cream and sugar together, whip
until it forms soft peaks.
3. Combine beaten cream cheese, whipped cream, and lemon juice; continue
to beat, adding just enough pineapple juice to achieve desired consistency.
4. Serve with fresh fruit salad.
BURT
I guess you're the fruit.
Mitch Raemsch
Steve Knight
wrote:
>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>argument against it.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
in the world! So 'your' wrong.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
BURT
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> >argument against it.
>
> >Mitch Raemsch
>
> But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
> in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>
> Warlord Steve
> BAAWA
That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
right.
Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!
Relgion didn't loose.
Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics
Uncle Vic
Olrik
> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Fruit Salad
> I guess you're the fruit.
Glad you acknowledge your original post was meaningless. Thanks.
> Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Vic
> On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>> >argument against it.
>>
>> >Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
>> in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>>
>> Warlord Steve
>> BAAWA
>
> That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
> right.
But he rides a wheelchair. How can you go wrong if you ride a
wheelchair?
>
> Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!
Can't prove a negative. Prove that I'm not the richest man in the world.
> Relgion didn't loose.
Religion didn't loose what? Did it not loose arrows? What did it not
loose? Or did you mean "LOSE"?
Religion always loses. Have you ever read the bible?
>
> Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics
>
...yet cannot discern the difference between "loose" and "lose".
Bwaaaaahahahahaha!
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
EAC looser of losers
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
Mitch Raemsch
Olrik
Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.
> Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Vic
Yet another internet "LOOSE" LOSER!!!
TEH!
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"REAL science is proving what the Bible has said all along."
--AllSeeing-I 9/12/10
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hawking didn't win.
Mitch Raemsch
Olrik
Just pray for yourself and leave science alone. It does not concern you.
Mickey
I see. You are going to disagree with anyone who
doesn't agree with you about anything, even if you
are wrong about everything or simply here to make
trouble. My guess would be that you just want to
make trouble. How fundie of you to troll alt.atheism
and to cross-post to a physics newsgroup that
obviously wants nothing to do with a fool like you.
BURT
Then I must of done something right.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Olrik? I am a two time Nobel Prize winner for this year
Science cannot get rid of me. The announcements are comming soon!
Maybe you can look down on me until then!
Mitch Raemsch
Mickey
> Fruit Salad
>
> Fresh summer fruits go perfectly with the Fruit Cream Dressing, making a
> luscious dessert that's easier on the waistline than traditional fat
> loaded cakes or pies.
>
> Ingredients:
>
> 2 cups fresh seedless grapes , whole or cut depending on size
> 4 cups nectarines and peaches, sliced
> 2 cups fresh pineapple chunks
> 1 cup sliced kiwi fruit
>
> Directions:
>
> 1. Combine all fruits and chill.
>
strawberries and blueberries (I'm allergic to
fresh strawberries) and, definitely no fruit
cream dressing. But the rest of the fruit salad
sounds delicious. And, none of this 'or' stuff.
I want them all! And, I've changed the ingredients
so my doctor won't bite my head off next time she
checks my blood sugar.
Mickey
Thank you for proving what a bigotted son of a trash
heap you are.
Mickey
> On Sep 15, 9:59 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a écrit :
> > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a écrit :
> > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Fruit Salad
> > >>> I guess you're the fruit.
>
> > >> Glad you acknowledge your original post was meaningless. Thanks.
>
> > >>> Mitch Raemsch
> > > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
>
> > Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Hawking didn't win.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
And, you are so desperate for attention that you
constantly have to brag about Nobel Prizes that
can't be found on the Internet. First in
2008 and now in 2010. How odd.
Velociraptor
wrote:
>On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>> >argument against it.
>>
>> >Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
>> in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>>
>> Warlord Steve
>> BAAWA
>
>That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
>right.
>
>Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!
OK
You said recently:
-- Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
-- argument against it.
That does not make sense. Maybe you left out a few words, or perhaps
you intended to type 2 different sentences and they got mixed up.
>Relgion didn't loose.
>
>Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics
Well I've got four Nobel prizes!
--
velociraptor_nice_reptile @NO_SPAM yahoo.co.uk
Igor
What truth is that? And science doesn't have to "bow" to anything.
Something is either falsifiable or it isn't. God isn't. Therefore
science has nothing to say about your silly beliefs.
archie dux
Apparently these are the Covert Nobel Prizes,
or as those on the inside refer to them,
the "Real" Nobel Prizes.
Sadly, what with my having told you this,
you may expect a knock on your door
presently.
archie
archie dux
Really! They've started giving out more than one
Prize for physics per year?
When did this start?
archie
BURT
In three weeks. But you will have to wait until then!
>
> archie- Hide quoted text -
default
wrote:
>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>argument against it.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
The big bang (a theory) happened therefore god dunnit?
Hmm - how do you know? Were you there? Did you see the almighty
smiter screwing around in space or nothingness?
How do you know it is a Universe, could this be part of a Multiverse?
That sounds redundant to me, maybe there's a "verse" with unlimited
"uni"verses?
--
Syd M.
> Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> argument against it.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
No.
It has to do no such thing.
PDW
Smiler
From the guys in the black EAC (ntie) helicopters!
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly
fit the prejudices of their believers.
JohnN
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Meanwhile, three weeks later on Oct 8th: chirp, chirp, chirp
JohnN
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bye Bye.
Steve Knight
wrote:
>On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
They don't choose the winners until October.
Whoops!
I should know. I have nine or ten of them.. no twenty! I have
twenty. Wanna buy a Tux?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Darwin123
> Hawking didn't win.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Hawking didn't win or lose. Hawking wasn't even playing.
Darwin123
> > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Yet another internet "LOOSE" LOSER!!!
DanielSan
I can't get any more. I have too many Pulitzers.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
BURT
Hawking said science would win. And told the world we don't need God.
Mitch Raemsch
Olrik
And Hawking's right. What's your problem ?
Olrik
> Mitch Raemsch
Mickey
That should be 'I must have'. So, you did
something wrong. Plus, you never did win
a Nobel Prize.
Mickey
Mickey
> On Sep 16, 4:35 pm, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 3:00 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 8:08 am, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 9:39 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> > > > > > >argument against it.
>
> > > > > > >Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
> > > > > > in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>
> > > > > > Warlord Steve
> > > > > > BAAWA
>
> > > > > That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
> > > > > right.
>
> > > > > Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!
> > > > > Relgion didn't loose.
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics
>
> > > > Really! They've started giving out more than one
> > > > Prize for physics per year?
>
> > > > When did this start?
>
> > > In three weeks. But you will have to wait until then!
>
>
Giving up already?
Mickey
Christopher A. Lee
Because science models reality consistently, predictably and
predictively. Its explanations are expected to work, and do. Religion
plucks non-explanations for questions only it has, out of thin air and
expects them to be taken seriously.
BURT
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Mickey
>
> >On Sep 16, 9:26 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 16, 5:47 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Hawking didn't win.
>
> >> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> >> > Hawking didn't win or lose. Hawking wasn't even playing.
>
> >> Hawking said science would win. And told the world we don't need God.
>
> >He's right. So?
Not at all. Science can't win that argument.
Mitch Raemsch
Smiler
They're too busy with BURT to bother with you. And, you being #1, I'd have
thought you *knew* about the black helicopters.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hawking says he's going to prove that the universe created itself.
Of course he lost that argument to religion.
Mitch Raemsch
Smiler
> On Sep 17, 7:46 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:59:58 -0700, Mickey wrote:
>> > On Sep 16, 7:14 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:07:00 -0700, archie dux wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 15, 11:44 pm, Mickey <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Sep 15, 9:59 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a écrit :
>> >> >> > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a écrit :
>> >> >> > > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>>> Fruit Salad
>> >> >> > > >>> I guess you're the fruit.
>>
>> >> >> > > >> Glad you acknowledge your original post was meaningless.
>> >> >> > > >> Thanks.
>>
>> >> >> > > >>> Mitch Raemsch
>> >> >> > > > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
>>
>> >> >> > > Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> > Hawking didn't win.
>>
>> >> >> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> And, you are so desperate for attention that you constantly have
>> >> >> to brag about Nobel Prizes that can't be found on the Internet. Â
>> >> >> First in 2008 and now in 2010. How odd.
>>
>> >> > Apparently these are the Covert Nobel Prizes, or as those on the
>> >> > inside refer to them, the "Real" Nobel Prizes.
>>
>> >> > Sadly, what with my having told you this, you may expect a knock
>> >> > on your door presently.
>>
>> >> From the guys in the black EAC (ntie) helicopters!
>>
>> > Oh. I thought you meant the guys in the white coats.
>>
>> They're too busy with BURT to bother with you. And, you being #1, I'd
>> have thought you *knew* about the black helicopters.
>>
>> --
>> Smiler,
>> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
>> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly fit the prejudices of
>> their believers.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hawking says he's going to prove that the universe created itself. Of
> course he lost that argument to religion.
>
>
Nope.
BURT
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:58:19 -0700, BURT wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 7:46Â pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:59:58 -0700, Mickey wrote:
> >> > On Sep 16, 7:14Â pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:07:00 -0700, archie dux wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sep 16, 1:08Â am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Sep 15, 9:59Â pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a écrit :
> >> >> >> > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> Â wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a écrit :
> >> >> >> > > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> Â Â wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
How is Hawking going to win that argument?
Religon didn't lose.
Mitch Raemsch
Smiler
> On Sep 18, 4:05 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:58:19 -0700, BURT wrote:
>> > On Sep 17, 7:46 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:59:58 -0700, Mickey wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 16, 7:14 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:07:00 -0700, archie dux wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sep 15, 11:44 pm, Mickey <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Sep 15, 9:59 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a crit :
>> >> >> >> > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a crit :
>> >> >> >> > > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >>>> Fruit Salad
>> >> >> >> > > >>> I guess you're the fruit.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > >> Glad you acknowledge your original post was
>> >> >> >> > > >> meaningless. Thanks.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > >>> Mitch Raemsch
>> >> >> >> > > > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> >> > Hawking didn't win.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> >> And, you are so desperate for attention that you constantly
>> >> >> >> have to brag about Nobel Prizes that can't be found on the
>> >> >> >> Internet. First in 2008 and now in 2010. How odd.
>>
>> >> >> > Apparently these are the Covert Nobel Prizes, or as those on
>> >> >> > the inside refer to them, the "Real" Nobel Prizes.
>>
>> >> >> > Sadly, what with my having told you this, you may expect a
>> >> >> > knock on your door presently.
>>
>> >> >> From the guys in the black EAC (ntie) helicopters!
>>
>> >> > Oh. I thought you meant the guys in the white coats.
>>
>> >> They're too busy with BURT to bother with you. And, you being #1,
>> >> I'd have thought you *knew* about the black helicopters.
>>
>>
>> > Hawking says he's going to prove that the universe created itself. Of
>> > course he lost that argument to religion.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>
> How is Hawking going to win that argument? Religon didn't lose.
>
Try reading his exact words, not the spin you put on them.
BURT
I am responding to "Science will win."
But that would be foolish to believe.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> --
> Smiler,
> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly
> fit the prejudices of their believers.- Hide quoted text -
Smiler
Which is not mentioned in this thread.
> But that would be foolish to believe.
>
Yep. It's always foolish to believe...without evidence.
BURT
You say that I must use Hawking's very own words. And because I made
them exact
and now they are in this thread.
> > But that would be foolish to believe.
> Yep. It's always foolish to believe...without evidence.
Hawking cannot say there is No God without absolute evidence.
Relgion didn't lose.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> --
> Smiler,
> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly
archie dux
Which of the tens of thousands of religion
"didn't lose"?
Which of the tens of thousands of
cresation stories was right?
archie
BURT
All that believe in God.
>
> Which of the tens of thousands of
> cresation stories was right?
The one that includes the Big Bang.
>
> archie
>
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > --
> > > Smiler,
> > > The godless one. a.a.# 2279
> > > All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly
> > > fit the prejudices of their believers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sep 20, 4:39 pm, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
>> "didn't lose"?
>
>All that believe in God.
>
>>
>> Which of the tens of thousands of
>> cresation stories was right?
>
>The one that includes the Big Bang.
...
>God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
We have no reason to accept that claim, though nothing shows that it is
wrong, either. One can substitute any noun for God and be equally
correct in that statement.
BURT
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
God has no reason to prove that He exists.
Mitch Raemsch
AZ Nomad
>God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
Kermit the frog created your god.
BURT
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>
> Kermit the frog created your god.
Jim Henson was a gentle genius.
And God Created Himself.
Mitch Raemsch
archie dux
Indeed.
Not only that, God seems to have gone to
rather extreme lengths to convince any
intelligent and reflective person that
He does not exist.
Rather an odd practice, but who am I
to tell God He's going about it all wrong?
archie
>
> Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is Intelligent Design but you have to be intelligent to see it.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sep 20, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 4:39 pm, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
>> >> "didn't lose"?
>>
>> >All that believe in God.
>>
>> >> Which of the tens of thousands of
>> >> cresation stories was right?
>>
>> >The one that includes the Big Bang.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>>
>> We have no reason to accept that claim, though nothing shows that it is
>> wrong, either. One can substitute any noun for God and be equally
>> correct in that statement.
>
>God has no reason to prove that He exists.
God is indistinguishable from nothing.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
How arrogant your self-praise.
Sincerely,
Dunning-Krueger
BURT
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:50:29 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 20, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >On Sep 20, 4:39 pm, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
> >> >> "didn't lose"?
>
> >> >All that believe in God.
>
> >> >> Which of the tens of thousands of
> >> >> cresation stories was right?
>
> >> >The one that includes the Big Bang.
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>
> >> We have no reason to accept that claim, though nothing shows that it is
> >> wrong, either. One can substitute any noun for God and be equally
> >> correct in that statement.
>
> >God has no reason to prove that He exists.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
He does not have to prove that He exists or does not exist.
Neither does He exist nor does He not exist.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
There's no evidence that any gods exist. Why do you assume otherwise?
BURT
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:32:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can see it for myself. There is Intelligent Design with an Absolute
Beginning at the Big Bang. There is no universe without God.
Mitch Raemsch
DanielSan
>
No evidence of that.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
BURT
God does not need to prove that He exists.
>
> --
> DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
> -------------------------------------------
> EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
> -------------------------------------------
> "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
> of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
> plainer when you put out your Candle."
> --Benjamin Franklin, 1758
> -------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
DanielSan
That makes no sense.
HTH.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
--------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
--------------------------------------------
"There is never enough time to do or say all
the things that we would wish. The thing is
to try to do as much as you can in the time
that you have. Remember, time is short, and
suddenly, you're not here any more."
--Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge, 1970
--------------------------------------------
DanielSan
No, but atheists can dismiss the concept if there's no evidence for it.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
--------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
BURT
Yes you can but you would not win the war against religion that way.
Mitch Raemsch
> --
> DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
> --------------------------------------------
> EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
> --------------------------------------------
> "There is never enough time to do or say all
> the things that we would wish. The thing is
> to try to do as much as you can in the time
> that you have. Remember, time is short, and
> suddenly, you're not here any more."
> --Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge, 1970
> --------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
DanielSan
And since we're not in any "war against religion".....
BURT
Stephen Hawking is.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> --
> DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
> --------------------------------------------
> EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
> --------------------------------------------
> "There is never enough time to do or say all
> the things that we would wish. The thing is
> to try to do as much as you can in the time
> that you have. Remember, time is short, and
> suddenly, you're not here any more."
> --Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge, 1970
DanielSan
No, he isn't.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
BURT
When he said science would win what was he talking about?
Mitch Raemsch
>
> --
> DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
> -------------------------------------------
> EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
> -------------------------------------------
> "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
> of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
> plainer when you put out your Candle."
> --Benjamin Franklin, 1758
DanielSan
Provide some context, if you would.
BURT
"Science will win." Stephen Hawking
>
> --
> DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
> -------------------------------------------
> EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
> -------------------------------------------
> "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
> of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
> plainer when you put out your Candle."
> --Benjamin Franklin, 1758
DanielSan
You just repeated the claim. Now provide the *CONTEXT*.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please then prove that Stepehen Hawking did not say this
to the public.
Mitch Raemsch
DanielSan
> to the public.
I didn't claim that he never said that. I'm asking you to provide context.
AZ Nomad
>That makes no sense.
>HTH.
Sense is the antithesis to religion.
BVT demonstrates his brain damage every time he posts.
BURT
Then it's fairly obvious what the argument is about.
Mitch Raemsch
> I'm asking you to provide context.
>
> --
> DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
> -------------------------------------------
> EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
> -------------------------------------------
> "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
> of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
> plainer when you put out your Candle."
> --Benjamin Franklin, 1758
DanielSan
Then it should be easy to provide the context.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing more is neccesary for my argument that Stephen Hawking
tried to get rid of God. That is the only context that is needed.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Gordge
> God created the Big Bang
So where was god existing while creating the big bang, in a place that
didn't go bang and didn't need banging? Sooo what went bang?
MG
BURT
The absolute beginning of creation. But that does't relate to the word
"bang."
God had an infinite beginning and created us at the beginning of time.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Gordge
> On Sep 21, 1:52 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 10:24 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > God created the Big Bang
>
> > So where was god existing while creating the big bang, in a place that
> > didn't go bang and didn't need banging? Sooo what went bang?
>
> > MG
>
> The absolute beginning of creation. But that does't relate to the word
> "bang."
But anyway, you didn't answer, where was god when all this banging was
going on?
> God had an infinite beginning and created us at the beginning of time.
So it was where exactly, just prior to the bang it created?
MG
BURT
Nothingness doesn't exist.
Michael Gordge
Oh so god didn't begin it all?
MG
huge
We know that extremely simple things,
combined with rules that are also extremely simple, will
often evolve into complex things -- and this does
not just apply to life.
A look at cellular automata demonstrates this:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UniversalCellularAutomaton.html
which is implimented by this simple rule:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rule110.html
Unlikely theory:
1) extremely complex sentient being first _somehow_ exists,
2) that extremely complex being then creates the complex things we see.
Likely theory:
1) the complex things we see come into their complexity by way of simple
rules.
The unlikely theory contains an extra middle-man, in
need of explanation like any other complex thing.
It is simply much more likely that complexity
just happens -- without an unexplained
middle man.
The unlikely explanation is nothing more than a
Rube Goldberg explanation: a comically involved,
complicated invention, laboriously contrived to
perform a simple operation. If you are unfamiliar
with this reference, have a look here:
Here is Rube's
"Mail your wife's letter reminder."
http://globalmoxie.com/bm~pix/rube-goldberg~s600x600.gif
So, until you can explain a god's organization and
complexity you have absolutely no good argument to insist that
other complex things can as likely be explained by a 'creator.'
Indeed it is *highly* unlikely.
--
Not on my time you don't.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you mean?
God is my point. He Created Himself then the universe.
Hypersphere cosmology reveals the Beginning of the universe.
Mitch Raemsch
Buddythunder
> On Sep 20, 5:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:50:29 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> > >On Sep 20, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
> > >> >> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
> > >> >> "didn't lose"?
>
> > >> >All that believe in God.
>
> > >> >> Which of the tens of thousands of
> > >> >> cresation stories was right?
>
> > >> >The one that includes the Big Bang.
>
>
> > >> >God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>
> > >> wrong, either. One can substitute any noun for God and be equally
> > >> correct in that statement.
>
> > >God has no reason to prove that He exists.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Neither does He exist nor does He not exist.
>
Fair enough, but to hold people eternally accountable for their non-
belief arising from living in a world that really doesn't look
designed at all is tyrannical, capricious and petulant. Is this the
God you believe in?
Buddythunder
Neither does the Great Green Arkleseizure, the point is that there's
no sensible reason to believe in either.
Buddythunder
Do you not understand the word "context"?
Buddythunder
Maybe to the magically-minded twice Nobel laureate, but sane folks are
aware that less scrupulous-types often selectively quote authorities
to twist their original meaning to support their favourite delusions.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
What Hawking said in public was that we don't need God.
That is the context I am speaking of.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sep 20, 5:58 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:32:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 5:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:50:29 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >> >On Sep 20, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >> >> >On Sep 20, 4:39 pm, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
>> >> >> >> "didn't lose"?
>>
>> >> >> >All that believe in God.
>>
>> >> >> >> Which of the tens of thousands of
>> >> >> >> cresation stories was right?
>>
>> >> >> >The one that includes the Big Bang.
>>
>> >> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>>
>> >> >> We have no reason to accept that claim, though nothing shows that it is
>> >> >> wrong, either. One can substitute any noun for God and be equally
>> >> >> correct in that statement.
>>
>> >> >God has no reason to prove that He exists.
>>
>> >> God is indistinguishable from nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >He does not have to prove that He exists or does not exist.
>> >Neither does He exist nor does He not exist.
>>
>> There's no evidence that any gods exist. Why do you assume otherwise?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I can see it for myself. There is Intelligent Design with an Absolute
>Beginning at the Big Bang. There is no universe without God.
Yes, you make assertions. Anyone can do that. I notice that you don't
actually back up your assertions with evidence or valid logical
arguments.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sep 20, 6:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 9/20/2010 4:43 PM, BURT wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 20, 4:39 pm, archie dux<architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
>> >> "didn't lose"?
>>
>> > All that believe in God.
>>
>> >> Which of the tens of thousands of
>> >> cresation stories was right?
>>
>> > The one that includes the Big Bang.
>>
>> > God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>>
>> No evidence of that.
>
>God does not need to prove that He exists.
You keep saying that.
Why don't you need to show that He exists when you claim that He does?
BURT
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:23:19 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No one needs to prove He exists. If you think that you are a
matterialist.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
The universe exists as it exists. There's no reason to delude yourself
that there is a metaphysical level to it.