Why is there sometihing rather than nothing (TED Talk)

[Malcolm McMahon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M

A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a way
of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
without such a god.

[default]

Because you can't answer why the world exists a god must exist? That
is not logical. I like his idea that god has to wonder what made
himself...

BTW you don't have to put up with youtube to watch TED talks.

https://www.ted.com/

Even if you accept the existence of god (and I don't deny that there
"could" be a god) that's still a very long way from the sniveling
egotistical adolescent god of Abraham. A god that needs to be
worshiped?

I'm going to stick to "I don't know" if there is a god, because that
is the only honest position to take; NOT that there must be a god
because I can't explain the universe.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:57:03 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
><mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
>>
>>A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
>>answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a way
>>of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
>>Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
>>the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
>>without such a god.

Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation without
needing to invent an omnipotent, magical superbeing for which there is
no evidence.

These days there is no justification for theism.

But even before developments in quantum physics, theism was basically
the argument from ignorance passed on memetically from parent to child
and enacted into law in far too many places.

>Because you can't answer why the world exists a god must exist? That
>is not logical. I like his idea that god has to wonder what made
>himself...
>
>BTW you don't have to put up with youtube to watch TED talks.
>
>https://www.ted.com/
>
>Even if you accept the existence of god (and I don't deny that there
>"could" be a god) that's still a very long way from the sniveling
>egotistical adolescent god of Abraham. A god that needs to be
>worshiped?
>
>I'm going to stick to "I don't know" if there is a god, because that
>is the only honest position to take; NOT that there must be a god
>because I can't explain the universe.

Until they justify their god, there is nothing to "not know". They
also can't grasp that theirs is merely one of hundreds, if not
thousands, of equally unjustified religious beliefs for which there is
zero evidence and that are not necessary to explain anything.

[travellin...@gmail.com]

There is a god because the big bang was redone.
That is a locked position.
There is a god because it is inevitable

[Malcolm McMahon]

Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:57:03 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>><mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
>>>
>>>A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
>>>answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a
>>>way
>>>of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
>>>Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_
>>>of
>>>the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a
>>>universe
>>>without such a god.
>
>Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation without
>needing to invent an omnipotent, magical superbeing for which there is
>no evidence.
>

Does it really? It all seems to be a bit hand-wavey to me. Quantum fluctuation?
First you need quantum physics to exist and where does _that_ come from?

Do we start with mathematics and believe everything mathematically possible
will happen? As discussed in the talk, that's magical thinking, as orginated by
Plato.

As I said, I believe divine creation is no answer but rather an evasion, but
that doesn't mean I'm convinced that physics has an answer yet, even a
hand-wavey answer. As you say, we don't know.

[Malcolm McMahon]

You may have locked it - set you brain into read-only mode, but that doesn't go
for everyone.

>There is a god because it is inevitable

Why? Isn't complete nothingness equally possible?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

<mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:57:03 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>>><mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
>>>>
>>>>A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
>>>>answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a
>>>>way
>>>>of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
>>>>Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_
>>>>of
>>>>the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a
>>>>universe
>>>>without such a god.
>>
>>Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation without
>>needing to invent an omnipotent, magical superbeing for which there is
>>no evidence.
>>
>
>Does it really? It all seems to be a bit hand-wavey to me. Quantum fluctuation?
>First you need quantum physics to exist and where does _that_ come from?

Quantum physics _does_ exist. Without it, the chips in your PC
wouldn't work.

>Do we start with mathematics and believe everything mathematically possible
>will happen? As discussed in the talk, that's magical thinking, as orginated by
>Plato.

And it's a stupid straw man.

Are you being deliberately stupid? The understanding of quantum
physics led to predictions which were experimentally verified - Google
the Lamb Shift or the Casimir effect,

>As I said, I believe divine creation is no answer but rather an evasion, but
>that doesn't mean I'm convinced that physics has an answer yet, even a
>hand-wavey answer. As you say, we don't know.

Hardly "hand-wavey". There are scenarios which break no known laws of
physics and are minimal extrapolations from what is already known
experimentally.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

And don't forget, the appearance of these particles is statistically
random. Not weighted random in which case one might look for a cause.
If there were one to be found. it could be manipulated and lead to
technologies currently in the realm of science fiction.

[travellin...@gmail.com]

Moron, I just told you, the first cause is a locked position. How did you get this brainless, tons of practice?

>
>
> >There is a god because it is inevitable
>
> Why? Isn't complete nothingness equally possible?

Hi, moron

[default]

Physics only attempts to explain the mechanics of the formation of the
universe. It can't explain a purpose - but then there's no reason to
believe a purpose is necessary. I think the religiously afflicted
need to believe there is a purpose.

Any way you want to slice it "I don't know" is where we are.

And, as you state, any one of hundreds of beliefs attempt to explain.
There's probably a better chance that none of them gets it right,
simply because they are mankind's idea of what constitutes a god, and
attribute to a god the idiosyncrasies and imperfections of a man.

[default]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:32:52 -0700 (PDT), travellin...@gmail.com
wrote:

If there is a god, he's probably sitting around wondering if there is
a god who made him.

[travellin...@gmail.com]

I suggested such to heavenly father a while back
It isn't so

[travellin...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:48:08 AM UTC-6, default wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 08:06:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
> <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:57:03 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>

> Physics only attempts to explain the mechanics of the formation of the
> universe.

I think it does more than that.

[JTEM]

Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> without such a god.

This isn't true. I have read opinions from
physicists who seem to think that consciousness
would be easier than consciousness plus a whole
universe.

See? You're arguing that consciousness PLUS all
that other stuff is less work than consciousness
alone.








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation

There is no explanation, you fucked-in-the-head
troll.

There's competing ideas, and you can cherry pick
one and call it "The" explanation but you're not
doing anything that your typical theists isn't
doing.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 09:35:23 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>

Unfortunately, modern physics can be prettu esoteric. In the 1960s we
did some simple quantum mechanics in high school physics. I can't
remember whether it was ordinary level (taught up to age 16) or
advanced (up to 18). But I have tried to keep up as I was always a
bit of a nerd.

But the religiously afflicted and a few others seem to be stuck in the
19th and early 20th century.

>Any way you want to slice it "I don't know" is where we are.

"I don't know" is far too broad. Creationists see it as "don't know
anything therefore my explanation is just as valid", when it's
actually bounded by and within what we _do_ know. Which includes
prediction and experimental verification of the spontaneous appearance
of fundamental particles at the quantum level.

Another difference is that no physicist insists that the big bang was
the result of a quantum fluctuation or any of the other scenarios.
They're all _justified_ suggestions.

Unlike the _un_justified creationist certainty, about which nobody
with even a proper high school education would even give a thought
unless it was part of their childhood conditioning.

And if you're not already a believer, there isn't anything to "not
know whether or not it exists" because it's merely part somebody
else's religion.

Also.if you don't already believe, it's also not substantively
different from all the other unjustified beliefs out there like
Bigfoot, Santa Claus, UFOs hiding behind the Hale comet, etc.

Actually, Santa Claus is a pretty good example of the problem. Even
though most people say "There ain't no Santa", that is an
over-simplification. They actually see it as a charming game played
with the kids at Christmas - in other words, a cultural phenomenon.

Which when push comes to shove, is probably how most atheists see
somebody else's god.

>And, as you state, any one of hundreds of beliefs attempt to explain.
>There's probably a better chance that none of them gets it right,
>simply because they are mankind's idea of what constitutes a god, and
>attribute to a god the idiosyncrasies and imperfections of a man.

The ancient Greeks believed that Gaia (the Earth) emerged from yawning
nothingness, as did their primary gods.

[John Locke]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:59:37 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

..because complete nothingness is highly improbable..in fact, complete
nothingness would most likely be inherently unstable and would
eventually result in some form of quantum anomaly effecting an energy
correction, energized by extreme negative gravitational repulsion. The
end result being a residual, zero energy universe. And, of course, no
god need apply.

[John Locke]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:32:52 -0700 (PDT), travellin...@gmail.com
wrote:

...positing a god as the creator of the universe is a cop out and
an irresponsible claim. This is the kind of thinking that has hindered
science for centuries. Sure, we don't exactly how inflation
occurred, but we've got a lot of ideas and eventually we'll find the
answers. There's no answers in the "God did it" scenario,
that's for damned sure.

[aaa]

God is required to make up such elaborate scheme.

>
>
>



--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

[John Locke]

..and just exactly where did your god acquire the knowledge
to fabricate such an "elaborate scheme ? And while were at it..
where exactly did your god come from ? Excuse me, but I think I"lll go
with a natural quantum vacuum. You can continue on with your
dead-ended "God did it" baloney. Eventually, we'll find the real
answers..then where will your magic god hide ?

[Malcolm McMahon]

I don't deny the predictive power of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics
clearly operates in our universe. But where did it come from? Quantum mechanics
draws parallels between our universe and certain mathematical equations. It
doesn't explain _why_ those relationships hold. Quantum mechanics would operate
equally well if no mathematicians existed.

And did quantum mechanics exist _before_ our universe came to be? Does it exist
outside our universe?

>>Do we start with mathematics and believe everything mathematically possible
>>will happen? As discussed in the talk, that's magical thinking, as orginated
>>by
>>Plato.
>
>And it's a stupid straw man.

But it seems to lie behind quite a bit of thinking in the area.

>
>Are you being deliberately stupid? The understanding of quantum
>physics led to predictions which were experimentally verified - Google
>the Lamb Shift or the Casimir effect,
>

No, are you being deliberately rude?

>>As I said, I believe divine creation is no answer but rather an evasion, but
>>that doesn't mean I'm convinced that physics has an answer yet, even a
>>hand-wavey answer. As you say, we don't know.
>
>Hardly "hand-wavey". There are scenarios which break no known laws of
>physics and are minimal extrapolations from what is already known
>experimentally.
>

They are vague, and whereas they _might_ be relevant they are no special
predictions.

>https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
>
>And don't forget, the appearance of these particles is statistically
>random. Not weighted random in which case one might look for a cause.
>If there were one to be found. it could be manipulated and lead to
>technologies currently in the realm of science fiction.

Yes, _in our universe_ but when we're discussing cosmogeny what happens in our
universe might not be a good guide.

[travellin...@gmail.com]

Bullshit.
You deny lifeforms possess intelligence and can improve?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Was that meant to make any sense at all?

>>>> You may have locked it - set you brain into read-only mode, but that doesn't go
>>>> for everyone.
>>>>
>>>>> There is a god because it is inevitable
>>>>
>>>> Why? Isn't complete nothingness equally possible?
>>>>
>>> ..because complete nothingness is highly improbable..in fact, complete
>>> nothingness would most likely be inherently unstable and would
>>> eventually result in some form of quantum anomaly effecting an energy
>>> correction, energized by extreme negative gravitational repulsion. The
>>> end result being a residual, zero energy universe. And, of course, no
>>> god need apply.
>>
>>God is required to make up such elaborate scheme.

What a fucking moron.

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

What makes them come here with their unsolicited, mindless stupidity
in the first place?

And then when it is refuted and they are told where to shove it, why
do they stay here, obsessively repeating the same old nonsense while
ignoring repeated correction?

They know that only Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in this
particular god - and even then there are so many differences they
might be three different ones.

Yet they insist that what is merely a character out of somebody else's
mythology did it.

If they bothered to think, this is mind-bogglingly stupid.

But they're too stupid for that.

>..and just exactly where did your god acquire the knowledge
>to fabricate such an "elaborate scheme ? And while were at it..
>where exactly did your god come from ? Excuse me, but I think I"lll go
>with a natural quantum vacuum. You can continue on with your
>dead-ended "God did it" baloney. Eventually, we'll find the real
>answers..then where will your magic god hide ?

Before these morons claim their god did anything at all, they have to
demonstrate it - and then show that it did what they claim.

[Kevrob]

Oh look, it's Yost, again!

You can always tell a jack mormon.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:25:22 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

You're demanding instant answers that aren't there, therefore some
imaginary magical superbeing did it.

You might as well object to classical mechanics because Newton didn't
know where matter came from.

>>>Do we start with mathematics and believe everything mathematically possible
>>>will happen? As discussed in the talk, that's magical thinking, as orginated
>>>by
>>>Plato.
>>
>>And it's a stupid straw man.
>
>But it seems to lie behind quite a bit of thinking in the area.

Bollocks. Quantum effects were observed long before virtual particles
(a misnomer, they're real, all right) were predicted.

And experiments were designed to validate the prediction.

Which they did.

>>
>>Are you being deliberately stupid? The understanding of quantum
>>physics led to predictions which were experimentally verified - Google
>>the Lamb Shift or the Casimir effect,
>>
>
>No, are you being deliberately rude?

Just treating silliness as silliness.

>>>As I said, I believe divine creation is no answer but rather an evasion, but
>>>that doesn't mean I'm convinced that physics has an answer yet, even a
>>>hand-wavey answer. As you say, we don't know.
>>
>>Hardly "hand-wavey". There are scenarios which break no known laws of
>>physics and are minimal extrapolations from what is already known
>>experimentally.
>>
>
>They are vague, and whereas they _might_ be relevant they are no special
>predictions.

So they're hypotheses. Nobody claims anything else, and it is just
plain to dismiss them as "hand-waving". They're avenues for possible
investigation.

Why do you want unjustified certainties plucked out of thin air?

>>https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
>>
>>And don't forget, the appearance of these particles is statistically
>>random. Not weighted random in which case one might look for a cause.
>>If there were one to be found. it could be manipulated and lead to
>>technologies currently in the realm of science fiction.
>
>Yes, _in our universe_ but when we're discussing cosmogeny what happens in our
>universe might not be a good guide.

Except that this is the only universe we have to go on.

Why would a quantum event not be a valid proposal for the big bang?
Remember, it was infinitessimally small.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>

His religion has made him seriously mentally ill, so obsessed with
atheists and leading edge science that he wipes his nonsense in our
faces day in and day out.

[aaa]

No matter what kind of answer you can come up, you will always need God
to make it up. Knowledge only comes from God himself. That includes all
of your knowledge as well.

[aaa]

I did demonstrate it, but you failed to understand it.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:23:07 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> Actually, Santa Claus is a pretty good example of the problem. Even
> though most people say "There ain't no Santa", that is an
> over-simplification. They actually see it as a charming game played
> with the kids at Christmas - in other words, a cultural phenomenon.
>
> Which when push comes to shove, is probably how most atheists see
> somebody else's god.

I can remember figuring out there was no Santa, but keeping mum about
it because

a) I have 4 younger siblings and didn't want to ruin their fun,
and

b) I didn't want my folks to know I knew, because I figured that
I'd get more boring clothing presents, and fewer fun ones, like
toys, games and sporting equipment.

An older brother was assigned to let me down easy, when the time
came.

In the "evidence of the supernatural" department, "Santa" does
bring a lot of kids a lot of gifts. Same for the Easter bunny
and candy. Santa doesn't promise that, if you are a good boy or
girl, and you ask nicely, that he will regrow your missing limb.
On that score, Santa beats the Ghostly Trio all hollow.

Then there's, "Mommy, why do the fire department and the Marine Corps
collect all those toys for poor little girls and boys? Doesn't Santa
know where they live?" followed by a lot of phumpherumphing about
"Anybody can be one of Santa's Helpers..." so the elves don't have
to work so hard, I suppose.

[Kevrob]

You think it's the religion, in his case? I'd put a lot of the
blame on the drugs. Together they are an awful mix.

Intoxicants + guilt from a "thou shalt not booze or get high"
religious upbringing can't be good. I had a strict religious
raising, but Catholics made a "basket of cheer" a raffle prize
at their events. One isn't socially required to drink, though
being a lush is looked down on by parents, if not by your peer
group at...let's say...Georgetown Prep of Bethesda, MD. :)

[JWS]

Because you (everyone) keeps replying to the first post they make.
And then when their replies come back, you (everyone) keeps returning
the replies.
This is what they want. They enjoy seeing your responses. They
feel they are important. It takes a lot of self control and
discipline to ignore such stupidity.
It's not going to happen.

[%]

no they don , in fact they don't have to do anything at all

[Malcolm McMahon]

No, I'm refuting the "Physics has solved this stuff" position.

>You might as well object to classical mechanics because Newton didn't
>know where matter came from.
>
>>>>Do we start with mathematics and believe everything mathematically possible
>>>>will happen? As discussed in the talk, that's magical thinking, as
>>>>orginated
>>>>by
>>>>Plato.
>>>
>>>And it's a stupid straw man.
>>
>>But it seems to lie behind quite a bit of thinking in the area.
>
>Bollocks. Quantum effects were observed long before virtual particles
>(a misnomer, they're real, all right) were predicted.
>
>And experiments were designed to validate the prediction.
>
>Which they did.
>

I've no problem with QM, once you have a universe that behaves like that.

>>>
>>>Are you being deliberately stupid? The understanding of quantum
>>>physics led to predictions which were experimentally verified - Google
>>>the Lamb Shift or the Casimir effect,
>>>
>>
>>No, are you being deliberately rude?
>
>Just treating silliness as silliness.
>

No, you're deliberately rude. Why is that?

>>>>As I said, I believe divine creation is no answer but rather an evasion,
>>>>but
>>>>that doesn't mean I'm convinced that physics has an answer yet, even a
>>>>hand-wavey answer. As you say, we don't know.
>>>
>>>Hardly "hand-wavey". There are scenarios which break no known laws of
>>>physics and are minimal extrapolations from what is already known
>>>experimentally.
>>>
>>
>>They are vague, and whereas they _might_ be relevant they are no special
>>predictions.
>
>So they're hypotheses. Nobody claims anything else, and it is just
>plain to dismiss them as "hand-waving". They're avenues for possible
>investigation.
>

Yes, they are. But don't tell me "Physics has the anwers".

>Why do you want unjustified certainties plucked out of thin air?
>
>>>https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
>>>
>>>And don't forget, the appearance of these particles is statistically
>>>random. Not weighted random in which case one might look for a cause.
>>>If there were one to be found. it could be manipulated and lead to
>>>technologies currently in the realm of science fiction.
>>
>>Yes, _in our universe_ but when we're discussing cosmogeny what happens in
>>our
>>universe might not be a good guide.
>
>Except that this is the only universe we have to go on.
>

But it was not, it would seem, our universe that spawned the Big Bang.

>Why would a quantum event not be a valid proposal for the big bang?
>Remember, it was infinitessimally small.

Because if you have to start Ex Nihlo then there's no physics to spawn your big
bang.

[Malcolm McMahon]

A god, in fact, more elaborate than the scheme, and therefore more unlikely.

[Don Martin]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:30:38 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

I say $15/hour for elves! That will bring more Santa's Helpers out of
the woodwork!

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[Don Martin]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>

Or a mere jack off.

[travellin...@gmail.com]

https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

[aaa]

If the scheme requires the human intelligence to be discovered, then it
requires an even greater intelligence to be established. Therefore, by
discovering such elaborate scheme, the existence of God is already
implied. All natural physical laws are indications of God's existence.

[aaa]

On the other hand, the lack of response may suggest the lack of argument.

>
>>
>> They know that only Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in this
>> particular god - and even then there are so many differences they
>> might be three different ones.
>>
>> Yet they insist that what is merely a character out of somebody else's
>> mythology did it.
>>
>> If they bothered to think, this is mind-bogglingly stupid.
>>
>> But they're too stupid for that.
>>
>>> ..and just exactly where did your god acquire the knowledge
>>> to fabricate such an "elaborate scheme ? And while were at it..
>>> where exactly did your god come from ? Excuse me, but I think I"lll go
>>> with a natural quantum vacuum. You can continue on with your
>>> dead-ended "God did it" baloney. Eventually, we'll find the real
>>> answers..then where will your magic god hide ?
>>
>> Before these morons claim their god did anything at all, they have to
>> demonstrate it - and then show that it did what they claim.
>

[Oko Tillo]

==

> Oh look, it's Yost, again!

Oh, I think:

"Actually I have an assignment for the first cause I need to get to .
The marriage goes hand in hand with that. But the govt won't allow me to have her info"

made that pretty obvious.

Oko

[malkinm...@gmail.com]

Why? Why was the Big Bang 'redone'? Why is it in a 'locked position'?
Why is it 'inevitable'? You just babble conclusions you made with little
or no knowledge of science. You tell us nothing. You just babble. You
sound like a silly child, though not all children are that silly.

[Tim]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:01:50 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:

> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation
>

> There is no explanation, you fucked-in-the-head
> troll.

Yes there is, you cocksucking faggot.

>
> There's competing ideas, and you can cherry pick
> one and call it "The" explanation but you're not
> doing anything that your typical theists isn't
> doing.
>

Theism doesn't explain anything, you stupid faggot.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 15:59:52 UTC+1, JTEM wrote:

> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> > Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> > the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> > without such a god.
>

> This isn't true. I have read opinions from
> physicists who seem to think that consciousness
> would be easier than consciousness plus a whole
> universe.
>
> See? You're arguing that consciousness PLUS all
> that other stuff is less work than consciousness
> alone.
>
>

We have no evidence of consciousness without a physical substrate. Which suggests that, in order to get consciousness, you need the whole physics engine to be up and running.

Chicken and egg.

Now there could be potential in the strong anthropic conjecture, or in Hawkins' top-down universe, that consciousness could, effectively, reach back in time to tune the universe, to select a universe to create consciousness. However that doesn't require that that consciousness be at a high level. Human consciousness would certainly suffice. In fact animal consciousness would probably do it.

[malkinm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:35:21 AM UTC-4, travellin...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:59:40 AM UTC-6, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > travellin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:09:48 AM UTC-6, default wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> > >> <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> > >> >
> > >> >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that
> > >> >it
> > >> >answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a
> > >> >way
> > >> >of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.

> > >> >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_
> > >> >of
> > >> >the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a
> > >> >universe
> > >> >without such a god.
> > >>

> > >> Because you can't answer why the world exists a god must exist? That
> > >> is not logical. I like his idea that god has to wonder what made
> > >> himself...
> > >>
> > >> BTW you don't have to put up with youtube to watch TED talks.
> > >>
> > >> https://www.ted.com/
> > >>
> > >> Even if you accept the existence of god (and I don't deny that there
> > >> "could" be a god) that's still a very long way from the sniveling
> > >> egotistical adolescent god of Abraham. A god that needs to be
> > >> worshiped?
> > >>
> > >> I'm going to stick to "I don't know" if there is a god, because that
> > >> is the only honest position to take; NOT that there must be a god
> > >> because I can't explain the universe.
> > >
> > >There is a god because the big bang was redone.
> > >That is a locked position.
> >

> > You may have locked it - set you brain into read-only mode, but that doesn't go
> > for everyone.
> >
>

> Moron, I just told you, the first cause is a locked position. How did you get this brainless, tons of practice?

You refuse to explain what you are babbling about. And that you stupidly
start name calling only shows your own desperation. You can't explain how
you reached your conclusions. This is very common for theist trolls like
you. You're raised never to question what you had pumped into your skull
as a child. So when you spew the unexplained conclusions you were taught
as a helpless child, you can't understand why some people who weren't brainwashed like you refuse to accept what you babble.

> >
> > >There is a god because it is inevitable

Why is it inevitable? You'd better come up with a new reason because
all the old ones haven't been accepted and reasons given for this.
They're all silly assumptions. We want evidence not personal religious
faith.

> >
> > Why? Isn't complete nothingness equally possible?
>

> Hi, moron

You can't answer the question, can you, poor ignorant one.

[malkinm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:56:18 AM UTC-4, travellin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:49:23 AM UTC-6, default wrote:

> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:32:52 -0700 (PDT), travellin...@gmail.com

> > >There is a god because it is inevitable
> >

> > If there is a god, he's probably sitting around wondering if there is
> > a god who made him.
>
> I suggested such to heavenly father a while back
> It isn't so

I see. You talk to your god and it answers you personally. Uh-huh.
Your middle name wouldn't happen to be James, would it?

[malkinm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 1:42:25 PM UTC-4, aaa wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 12:54 PM, John Locke wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:59:37 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

> >> You may have locked it - set you brain into read-only mode, but that doesn't go
> >> for everyone.
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >>> There is a god because it is inevitable
> >>

> >> Why? Isn't complete nothingness equally possible?
> >>

> > ..because complete nothingness is highly improbable..in fact, complete
> > nothingness would most likely be inherently unstable and would
> > eventually result in some form of quantum anomaly effecting an energy
> > correction, energized by extreme negative gravitational repulsion. The
> > end result being a residual, zero energy universe. And, of course, no
> > god need apply.
>
> God is required to make up such elaborate scheme.
>

If it's a perfect god it can do whatever it wants to do.
Are you saying that your god isn't perfect?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:06:40 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:57:03 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>

> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> ><mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> >>
> >>A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
> >>answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a way
> >>of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
> >>Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> >>the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> >>without such a god.
>

> Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation without
> needing to invent an omnipotent, magical superbeing for which there is
> no evidence.
>

> These days there is no justification for theism.


We don't need your approval, asshole.
>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Show us where you refuted it.

[malkinm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:35:21 AM UTC-4, travellin...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:59:40 AM UTC-6, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > travellin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:09:48 AM UTC-6, default wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> > >> <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> > >> >
> > >> >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that
> > >> >it

> > >> >answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a way of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there anything_.

> > >> >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create
> > >> >the _rest_ of the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the
> > >> > existence of a universe without such a god.
> > >>
> > >> Because you can't answer why the world exists a god must exist? That
> > >> is not logical. I like his idea that god has to wonder what made
> > >> himself...
> > >>
> > >> BTW you don't have to put up with youtube to watch TED talks.
> > >>
> > >> https://www.ted.com/
> > >>
> > >> Even if you accept the existence of god (and I don't deny that there
> > >> "could" be a god) that's still a very long way from the sniveling
> > >> egotistical adolescent god of Abraham. A god that needs to be
> > >> worshiped?
> > >>
> > >> I'm going to stick to "I don't know" if there is a god, because that
> > >> is the only honest position to take; NOT that there must be a god
> > >> because I can't explain the universe.
> > >
> > >There is a god because the big bang was redone.
> > >That is a locked position.
> >

> > You may have locked it - set you brain into read-only mode, but that doesn't go
> > for everyone.
> >
>

> Moron, I just told you, the first cause is a locked position. How did you get this brainless, tons of practice?

> > >There is a god because it is inevitable
> >
> > Why? Isn't complete nothingness equally possible?
>

> Hi, moron

I forgot. travelling willberry is Yost. It's now added to the troll list.

[malkinm...@gmail.com]

We don't need anything from you, including your approval.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 01:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim <cyfur...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:01:50 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>> > Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation
>>
>> There is no explanation, you fucked-in-the-head
>> troll.

The proven serial liar has been given them over and over again.

>Yes there is, you cocksucking faggot.

It's deliberate. He gets too much wrong for it to be genuine.

>> There's competing ideas, and you can cherry pick
>> one and call it "The" explanation but you're not
>> doing anything that your typical theists isn't
>> doing.

Deluded fantasy derived from bronze-age mythology coupled with serious
denial of reality, isn't a "competing idea" with the results of
objective scientific research.

Perhaps the deliberate liar would explain what research "your typical
theists" who are in serious denial about objective physics, have been
doing?

>Theism doesn't explain anything, you stupid faggot.

It makes too many serious believers seriously mentally ill. Like it
did with McShitforbrains McGuinness.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Perhaps the raving loonie would care to show where I said that,
asshole?

>We don't need anything from you, including your approval.

I said there was no justification, these days.

Theism makes claims that anybody with more than half a brain, know are
false. Objective research has provided real-world answers to the
questions believers have been brainwashed to "think" can only be
answered by religion.

[default]

You are correct. People can believe any damn-fool thing they want to
believe; but that doesn't make you any less a troll.

[default]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 08:01:47 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>

>> Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation
>

>There is no explanation, you fucked-in-the-head
>troll.

When posting to the atheist group, you are the troll.

>
>There's competing ideas, and you can cherry pick
>one and call it "The" explanation but you're not
>doing anything that your typical theists isn't
>doing.
>

There are rational ideas and irrational ideas. That's the only
difference between atheists and theists.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 13:57:37 +0000, Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:57:03 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>>><mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
>>>>
>>>>A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea
>>>>that it answers the question of the origin of the universe. But,
>>>>really it's just a way of evading this deeper question. God is
>>>>something. Why is there _anything_. Explaining the existence of a god
>>>>able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of the universe is actually
>>>>_harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe without such a
>>>>god.
>>
>>Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation without needing
>>to invent an omnipotent, magical superbeing for which there is no
>>evidence.
>>
>>

> Does it really? It all seems to be a bit hand-wavey to me. Quantum
> fluctuation?
> First you need quantum physics to exist and where does _that_ come from?
>

> Do we start with mathematics and believe everything mathematically
> possible will happen? As discussed in the talk, that's magical thinking,
> as orginated by Plato.
>

> As I said, I believe divine creation is no answer but rather an evasion,
> but that doesn't mean I'm convinced that physics has an answer yet, even
> a hand-wavey answer. As you say, we don't know.

If modern physics has taught us anything, it has taught us that the
Universe is largely incomprehensible to us. Our brains are tuned to
solve survival problems over distances of a few inches to miles, and time
scales from seconds to years, in low gravity conditions. Once you get
outside those parameters, our "intuitions" are worthless. The math shows
that some bizarre stuff is going on, but we can't really comprehend it.

--
MarkA

You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott

[default]

You can't tell that to a fundie. To them the universe is benign,
orderly, and all you gotta know is god done it. If it seems
incomprehensible to us, that just proves a god was involved somehow.

[aaa]

I don't know what you are talking about. What has God done that is
imperfect according to you?

[Christopher A. Lee]

But that doesn't mean it can't be described. The problem is that much
of it is counter-intuitive so creationists and fundamentalists think
it simply doesn't happen - even though what is described has been
experimentally verified.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:11:23 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 08:01:47 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation
>>
>>There is no explanation, you fucked-in-the-head
>>troll.

>\
Two lies. The scenarios described break no known laws of physics and
are minimal extrapolations from what is known.

>When posting to the atheist group, you are the troll.

That was his other lie.

>>There's competing ideas, and you can cherry pick
>>one and call it "The" explanation but you're not
>>doing anything that your typical theists isn't
>>doing.
>>
>There are rational ideas and irrational ideas. That's the only
>difference between atheists and theists.

Scenarios like quantum fluctuation are rational, because when the big
bang kicked off, it was infinitesimally small.

This fits _within_ what is already known.

But then the proven serial liar has had this explained over and over
again.

But he's one of those creationists and fundamentalists who thinks the
counter-intuitive can't happen even though these quantum fluctuations
have been experimentally verified.

He's been told to Google the Casimir-Polder effect and the Lamb Shift,
many times.

[Oko Tillo]

==

> >> God is required to make up such elaborate scheme.
> >>
> > If it's a perfect god it can do whatever it wants to do. Are you
> > saying that your god isn't perfect?
>
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> What has God done that is imperfect according to you?

That's because you and she are using two different meanings of
the word "required"


Oko

[_V_infernalis_]

And of course the second statement in no way repudiates the first.


V

[Yap Honghor]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:09:48 PM UTC+8, default wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> >
> >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
> >answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a way
> >of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
> >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> >the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> >without such a god.
>

> Because you can't answer why the world exists a god must exist? That
> is not logical. I like his idea that god has to wonder what made
> himself...
>
> BTW you don't have to put up with youtube to watch TED talks.
>
> https://www.ted.com/
>
> Even if you accept the existence of god (and I don't deny that there
> "could" be a god) that's still a very long way from the sniveling
> egotistical adolescent god of Abraham. A god that needs to be
> worshiped?
>
> I'm going to stick to "I don't know" if there is a god, because that
> is the only honest position to take; NOT that there must be a god
> because I can't explain the universe.

I don't buy the idea that there could be a pixie!
If there is the possibility of one, why no Martians on Mars as compared to earthlings on earth??????????????????

No one can explain.....

[Yap Honghor]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 9:32:57 PM UTC+8, travellin...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:09:48 AM UTC-6, default wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> > <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> > >
> > >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
> > >answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a way
> > >of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
> > >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> > >the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> > >without such a god.
> >
> > Because you can't answer why the world exists a god must exist? That
> > is not logical. I like his idea that god has to wonder what made
> > himself...
> >
> > BTW you don't have to put up with youtube to watch TED talks.
> >
> > https://www.ted.com/
> >
> > Even if you accept the existence of god (and I don't deny that there
> > "could" be a god) that's still a very long way from the sniveling
> > egotistical adolescent god of Abraham. A god that needs to be
> > worshiped?
> >
> > I'm going to stick to "I don't know" if there is a god, because that
> > is the only honest position to take; NOT that there must be a god
> > because I can't explain the universe.
>

> There is a god because the big bang was redone.
> That is a locked position.

> There is a god because it is inevitable

Why no Martians on Mars???????????????
It is an untenable position for a pixie......

[Yap Honghor]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:42:25 AM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 12:54 PM, John Locke wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:59:37 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

> >> You may have locked it - set you brain into read-only mode, but that doesn't go
> >> for everyone.
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >>> There is a god because it is inevitable
> >>

> >> Why? Isn't complete nothingness equally possible?
> >>
> > ..because complete nothingness is highly improbable..in fact, complete
> > nothingness would most likely be inherently unstable and would
> > eventually result in some form of quantum anomaly effecting an energy
> > correction, energized by extreme negative gravitational repulsion. The
> > end result being a residual, zero energy universe. And, of course, no
> > god need apply.
>

> God is required to make up such elaborate scheme.
>

Pixie is required to bring food to the hungry people in Africa, but it is too evil to even contemplate such kindness!!!!!!!!!!

[duke]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
<mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
>
>A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
>answers the question of the origin of the universe.

Well, not quite. Yes, it is true that creation and existence is the work of
almighty God. But we follow God in love and obedience and the rest of his
teachings.

>But, really it's just a way
>of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
>Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
>the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
>without such a god.

Yeah, right. What do you call the creator if not God?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thursday, 11 October 2018 13:09:03 UTC+1, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> >
> >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
> >answers the question of the origin of the universe.
>
> Well, not quite. Yes, it is true that creation and existence is the work of
> almighty God. But we follow God in love and obedience and the rest of his
> teachings.
>
> >But, really it's just a way
> >of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
> >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> >the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> >without such a god.
>
> Yeah, right. What do you call the creator if not God?
>
>

Well, if some multiverse theories are correct our universe might have been created by a young science nerd in a high energy physics lab in some other universe.

Thus it could have a creator but no god. It could even have been created by an old professor with a beard.

Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.

There are a number of interesting ideas, and cosmogenists are working to narrow them down as well as dream up new ones.

[aaa]

It's rather obvious that you can only talk about bullshit.

[aaa]

My mistake. I didn't realize she already knew God's existence.

I must have been misinformed about atheists and atheism...

:-)

>
>
> Oko

[John Locke]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 07:08:56 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
><mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
>>
>>A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
>>answers the question of the origin of the universe.
>
>Well, not quite. Yes, it is true that creation and existence is the work of
>almighty God. But we follow God in love and obedience and the rest of his
>teachings.
>
>>But, really it's just a way
>>of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
>>Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
>>the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
>>without such a god.
>
>Yeah, right. What do you call the creator if not God?
>

...highly advanced aliens is one option but I think I'll just stick
with nature.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <tknvrddc58lqv5167...@4ax.com>,

John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:

> ...highly advanced aliens is one option but I think I'll just stick
> with nature.

The galaxy is a marble on the collar of Orion.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
An almond doesn't lactate. This post / \
Yet another supercilious snowflake for justice. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Malcolm McMahon]

But you need a universe _first_, even if it isn't the one we happen to live in.

[travellin...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:07:01 AM UTC-7, malkinm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 9:32:57 AM UTC-4, travellin...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:09:48 AM UTC-6, default wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> > > <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> > > >
> > > >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it

> > > >answers the question of the origin of the universe. But, really it's just a way

> > > >of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
> > > >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> > > >the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> > > >without such a god.
> > >

> > > Because you can't answer why the world exists a god must exist? That
> > > is not logical. I like his idea that god has to wonder what made
> > > himself...
> > >
> > > BTW you don't have to put up with youtube to watch TED talks.
> > >
> > > https://www.ted.com/
> > >
> > > Even if you accept the existence of god (and I don't deny that there
> > > "could" be a god) that's still a very long way from the sniveling
> > > egotistical adolescent god of Abraham. A god that needs to be
> > > worshiped?
> > >
> > > I'm going to stick to "I don't know" if there is a god, because that
> > > is the only honest position to take; NOT that there must be a god
> > > because I can't explain the universe.
> >
> > There is a god because the big bang was redone.
> > That is a locked position.

> > There is a god because it is inevitable
>
>

> Why? Why was the Big Bang 'redone'?

to ensure only union work occurs

Why is it in a 'locked position'?

if something happens to him it just starts again with him as first cause


> Why is it 'inevitable'?

a being improves until it achieves deity status at first

> You tell us nothing.

i have revealed the big picture already

[duke]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
<malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 11 October 2018 13:09:03 UTC+1, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>> <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
>> >
>> >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
>> >answers the question of the origin of the universe.
>>
>> Well, not quite. Yes, it is true that creation and existence is the work of
>> almighty God. But we follow God in love and obedience and the rest of his
>> teachings.
>>
>> >But, really it's just a way
>> >of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
>> >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
>> >the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
>> >without such a god.
>>
>> Yeah, right. What do you call the creator if not God?

>Well, if some multiverse theories are correct our universe might have been created by a young science nerd in a high energy physics lab in some other universe.

Heeheehee. IF, ARE?? Maybe the goose that laid the golden egg did it too.

>Thus it could have a creator but no god.

What's the difference?

>Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.

Bad unlearned comment. If it's so big, gravity no longer pulls. Why would it
collapse?

>There are a number of interesting ideas, and cosmogenists are working to narrow them down as well as dream up new ones.

You're right - dream.

[duke]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:39:28 -0700, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
wrote:

We call it God's way as "natural".

[sheesh ranjesh]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 11:39:45 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 11 October 2018 13:09:03 UTC+1, duke wrote:
> >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> >> <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
> >> >
> >> >A lot of the justification for theism (or deism) comes from the idea that it
> >> >answers the question of the origin of the universe.
> >>
> >> Well, not quite. Yes, it is true that creation and existence is the work of
> >> almighty God. But we follow God in love and obedience and the rest of his
> >> teachings.
> >>
> >> >But, really it's just a way
> >> >of evading this deeper question. God is something. Why is there _anything_.
> >> >Explaining the existence of a god able to and inclined to create the _rest_ of
> >> >the universe is actually _harder_ than explaining the existence of a universe
> >> >without such a god.
> >>
> >> Yeah, right. What do you call the creator if not God?
>
> >Well, if some multiverse theories are correct our universe might have been created by a young science nerd in a high energy physics lab in some other universe.
>
> Heeheehee. IF, ARE?? Maybe the goose that laid the golden egg did it too.
>
> >Thus it could have a creator but no god.
>
> What's the difference?
>
> >Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.
>

> Bad unlearned comment.

Not at all. It all depends if the curvature of space is negative, flat, or positive. The jury
is still out on that one, but if space is positively curved, then we get the Big Crunch:

http://cds.cern.ch/record/810284/files/0312110.pdf

or maybe a bit more readable:

https://plus.maths.org/content/shape-and-fate-universe

[duke]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:17:13 -0700 (PDT), sheesh ranjesh <truet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

There's that word "depends" again. On the finite observable level, we are in
continuous expansion. If we expand to infinite entropy, each particle will be
so far from any other particle, there is zero gravity to reverse expansion to
crunch.

[sheesh ranjesh]

"Again"?...

> On the finite observable level, we are in continuous expansion.

And as the articles I quoted point out, there is still no agreement on the curvature
of space, and thus on the ultimate fate of the Universe. What we can
observe now is not the ultimate determinant. If the curvature is positive,
expansion will reverse.

> If we expand to infinite entropy,

Since you're into this, I'm confident you've heard of the cosmic inflation theory, that
immediately after the big bang, space expanded enormously in a fraction
of a second.

Alan Guth, who originated that idea, points out that the universe cannot reach
total entropy as long as it continues to expand. That is of course obvious
in terms of Boltzmann's formalization of entropy -- if space expands forever,
then the number of microstates indistinguishable at the macro level increases
accordingly, and thus we will never reach full entropy. Straightforward stuff.

Just an interesting aside, nothing to do with the original question.

[StanFast]

Before you ask such incredibly non juvenile questions such as yours, you should learn to spell something properly, practice could help.

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:09:29 PM UTC-7, MikeYost wrote:

==

> Before you ask such incredibly non juvenile questions such as yours, you should learn to spell something properly, practice could help.

You would prefer incredibly juvenile questions instead?


Oko

[MikeYost]

That is what it was, moron

Inability to detect sarcasm

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 6:24:32 PM UTC-7, MikeYost wrote:
> That is what it was, moron
>
> Inability to detect sarcasm

Kind of hard to tell when you remove everything you're replying to.

So why do you do that?


Oko

[MikeYost]

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 9:10:46 PM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:

> Oko

do you have problems with comprehension and memory from one post to the next?

[Oko Tillo]

That would be Duke.

(of course, in one of the most hilarious bits of lunacy I've ever seen here,
you declared the Duke and I are the same person. that made me go around
smiling for the rest of the day)


Oko

[MikeYost]

i tried to get and obtain evidence to the contrary, and the evidence potential was removed.

so that is still out in the open up in the air at this point

i did try to disprove such thing of course

[Oko Tillo]

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, MikeYost wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:01:48 AM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
> > On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 10:00:42 AM UTC-7, MikeYost wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 9:10:46 PM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oko
> > >
> > > do you have problems with comprehension and memory from one post to the next?
> >
> > That would be Duke.
> >
> > (of course, in one of the most hilarious bits of lunacy I've ever seen here,
> > you declared the Duke and I are the same person. that made me go around
> > smiling for the rest of the day)
> >
> >
> > Oko
>
> i tried to get and obtain evidence to the contrary, and the evidence potential was removed.

"The evidence potential was removed"...

What does that even mean?


Oko

[Tim]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:26:55 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 01:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim <cyfur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:01:50 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:

> >> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >>
> >> > Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation
> >>

> >> There is no explanation, you fucked-in-the-head
> >> troll.
>
> The proven serial liar has been given them over and over again.

He's too stupid to follow a line of reasoning/

>
> >Yes there is, you cocksucking faggot.
>
> It's deliberate. He gets too much wrong for it to be genuine.

Never underestimate how stupid theists can be.

>
> >> There's competing ideas, and you can cherry pick
> >> one and call it "The" explanation but you're not
> >> doing anything that your typical theists isn't
> >> doing.
>
> Deluded fantasy derived from bronze-age mythology coupled with serious
> denial of reality, isn't a "competing idea" with the results of
> objective scientific research.

Exactly, but the boston cream puff is too stupid to see that.

>
> Perhaps the deliberate liar would explain what research "your typical
> theists" who are in serious denial about objective physics, have been
> doing?
>
> >Theism doesn't explain anything, you stupid faggot.
>
> It makes too many serious believers seriously mentally ill. Like it
> did with McShitforbrains McGuinness.

That's a fact.

[MikeYost]

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:19:41 AM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, MikeYost wrote:
> > On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:01:48 AM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 10:00:42 AM UTC-7, MikeYost wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 9:10:46 PM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Oko
> > > >
> > > > do you have problems with comprehension and memory from one post to the next?
> > >
> > > That would be Duke.
> > >
> > > (of course, in one of the most hilarious bits of lunacy I've ever seen here,
> > > you declared the Duke and I are the same person. that made me go around
> > > smiling for the rest of the day)
> > >
> > >
> > > Oko
> >
> > i tried to get and obtain evidence to the contrary, and the evidence potential was removed.
>
> "The evidence potential was removed"...
>
> What does that even mean?

the phone was disconnected.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:26:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim <cyfur...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:26:55 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 01:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim <cyfur...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:01:50 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>> >> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Twentieth century physics provides adequate explanation
>> >>
>> >> There is no explanation, you fucked-in-the-head
>> >> troll.
>>
>> The proven serial liar has been given them over and over again.
>
>He's too stupid to follow a line of reasoning/

Even if he is, he know he's been given them - so it is a deliberate
lie to say there is no explanation.

>> >Yes there is, you cocksucking faggot.
>>
>> It's deliberate. He gets too much wrong for it to be genuine.
>
>Never underestimate how stupid theists can be.

All too often, the stupidity is deliberate.

>> >> There's competing ideas, and you can cherry pick
>> >> one and call it "The" explanation but you're not
>> >> doing anything that your typical theists isn't
>> >> doing.
>>
>> Deluded fantasy derived from bronze-age mythology coupled with serious
>> denial of reality, isn't a "competing idea" with the results of
>> objective scientific research.
>
>Exactly, but the boston cream puff is too stupid to see that.
>>
>> Perhaps the deliberate liar would explain what research "your typical
>> theists" who are in serious denial about objective physics, have been
>> doing?
>>
>> >Theism doesn't explain anything, you stupid faggot.

The deliberate liar knows perfectly well that theism pretends to
explain things by "goddidit".

But that is like saying "a dropped brick doesn't fall down due to
gravity. God makes it happen"..

[Malcolm McMahon]

Being responsible for creating the universe doesn't necesarilly mean that you
had any knowledge of how it was going to work out, or any control over it, or
even any way to get info from it.

Say we find a way of spawning new universes in the laboratory. But, once
spawned, those universes go through their own big bang in some separate 4D
manifold (nobody wants another Big Bang in their own universe). We might be
able to set some initial conditions, but we'd have no idea what would develop.
We'd be creators, but not gods.

>
>>Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite
>>entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.
>
>Bad unlearned comment. If it's so big, gravity no longer pulls. Why would it
>collapse?
>

Because distance is defined in terms of objects which it is a distance between.
In an empty universe size has no meaning. So the universe could as easilly be
infinitessamal as infinite.

It's just a speculative idea at the moment, and I don't pretend to understand
the detailed argument.

Physics (Quantum Gravity) is starting to look at the nature of space. Its
looking less and less like a passive dimension. More like a physical structure.
A kind of network of discrete locations.

>>There are a number of interesting ideas, and cosmogenists are working to
>>narrow them down as well as dream up new ones.
>
>You're right - dream.

All science starts with dreams.

[sheesh ranjesh]

Yes, or Loop Quantum Gravity, to be all pedantic about it. This is what lies
behind the ideas that I showed to Duke, upstream.

I'm a big fan -- but more for aesthetic reasons; it's not like I'm competent
to comment on the nitty gritty.

[duke]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), sheesh ranjesh <truet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >> Heeheehee. IF, ARE?? Maybe the goose that laid the golden egg did it too.
>> >> >Thus it could have a creator but no god.
>> >> What's the difference?

You're stuck on that one.

>> >> >Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.
>> >> Bad unlearned comment.
>
>> >Not at all. It all depends if the curvature of space is negative, flat, or positive. The jury
>> >is still out on that one, but if space is positively curved, then we get the Big Crunch:
>> > http://cds.cern.ch/record/810284/files/0312110.pdf
>> >or maybe a bit more readable:
>
>> > https://plus.maths.org/content/shape-and-fate-universe

>> There's that word "depends" again.
>"Again"?...

Yep. The universe is not sentient, and thus doesn't forget.

>> On the finite observable level, we are in continuous expansion.

>And as the articles I quoted point out, there is still no agreement on the curvature
>of space, and thus on the ultimate fate of the Universe. What we can
>observe now is not the ultimate determinant. If the curvature is positive,
>expansion will reverse.

You're dreaming. If the universe continues to expand endlessly, everything in
existence will be so far apart that there is no more any gravity attraction.
Thus no crunch.

>> If we expand to infinite entropy,
>
>Since you're into this, I'm confident you've heard of the cosmic inflation theory, that
>immediately after the big bang, space expanded enormously in a fraction
>of a second.

I'm not sure where you're going, but not faster than the speed of light.

>Alan Guth, who originated that idea, points out that the universe cannot reach
>total entropy as long as it continues to expand. That is of course obvious
>in terms of Boltzmann's formalization of entropy -- if space expands forever,
>then the number of microstates indistinguishable at the macro level increases
>accordingly, and thus we will never reach full entropy. Straightforward stuff.

I conditioned it with zero gravitational attraction any more.

>Just an interesting aside, nothing to do with the original question.
>

[duke]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:59:07 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

So one infinite God is not the equal of one Creator?

>Say we find a way of spawning new universes in the laboratory.

Say the goose laid the golden egg.

> But, once
>spawned, those universes go through their own big bang in some separate 4D
>manifold (nobody wants another Big Bang in their own universe). We might be
>able to set some initial conditions, but we'd have no idea what would develop.
>We'd be creators, but not gods.

What's the difference?

>>>Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite
>>>entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.
>>
>>Bad unlearned comment. If it's so big, gravity no longer pulls. Why would it
>>collapse?

>Because distance is defined in terms of objects which it is a distance between.
>In an empty universe size has no meaning. So the universe could as easilly be
>infinitessamal as infinite.

No gravity, no crunch.

>It's just a speculative idea at the moment, and I don't pretend to understand
>the detailed argument.

No kidding. So why bullshit.

>Physics (Quantum Gravity) is starting to look at the nature of space. Its
>looking less and less like a passive dimension. More like a physical structure.
>A kind of network of discrete locations.

Whatever that means.

>>>There are a number of interesting ideas, and cosmogenists are working to
>>>narrow them down as well as dream up new ones.
>>
>>You're right - dream.
>All science starts with dreams.

And most flake out.

[sheesh ranjesh]

I see.

I had thought you might be interested in what actual cosmologists, who study these questions,
are thinking about currently.

It seems that I was mistaken.

[Malcolm McMahon]

Lack of subsequent power.

>
> >>>Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite
> >>>entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.
> >>
> >>Bad unlearned comment. If it's so big, gravity no longer pulls. Why would it
> >>collapse?
>
> >Because distance is defined in terms of objects which it is a distance between.
> >In an empty universe size has no meaning. So the universe could as easilly be
> >infinitessamal as infinite.
>
> No gravity, no crunch.

Very narrow minded.

>
> >It's just a speculative idea at the moment, and I don't pretend to understand
> >the detailed argument.
>
> No kidding. So why bullshit.
>
> >Physics (Quantum Gravity) is starting to look at the nature of space. Its
> >looking less and less like a passive dimension. More like a physical structure.
> >A kind of network of discrete locations.
>
> Whatever that means.
>

Find a book. The idea is that space, when you get to small enough sizes, is not continuous, but a kind of network of places, each being connected to other adjacent places, be each discrete and indivisible.

> >>>There are a number of interesting ideas, and cosmogenists are working to
> >>>narrow them down as well as dream up new ones.
> >>
> >>You're right - dream.
> >All science starts with dreams.
>
> And most flake out.
>

Yup. Science develops by trawling through ideas, filtering out those few that might be right.

[duke]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:51:57 -0700 (PDT), sheesh ranjesh <truet...@gmail.com>

>I see.
>I had thought you might be interested in what actual cosmologists, who study these questions,
>are thinking about currently.

Currently there is zero possibility they are correct.

>It seems that I was mistaken.

Maybe so, Maybe not, but it's them, not you..

[duke]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon

Then what is "God"?

>>Of the eternal universe ideas one is that when the universe reaches infinite
>> >>>entropy it forgets how big it is, space collapses and it starts again.
>> >>
>> >>Bad unlearned comment. If it's so big, gravity no longer pulls. Why would it
>> >>collapse?
>>
>> >Because distance is defined in terms of objects which it is a distance between.
>> >In an empty universe size has no meaning. So the universe could as easilly be
>> >infinitessamal as infinite.
>>
>> No gravity, no crunch.
>Very narrow minded.

Current mass of the universe is unable to cause a crunch because the universe is
expanding at an accelerated rate. What is there to reverse the increasing
rate, turn it around and become a crunch.

>> >It's just a speculative idea at the moment, and I don't pretend to understand
>> >the detailed argument.
>>
>> No kidding. So why bullshit.
>>
>> >Physics (Quantum Gravity) is starting to look at the nature of space. Its
>> >looking less and less like a passive dimension. More like a physical structure.
>> >A kind of network of discrete locations.
>>
>> Whatever that means.

>Find a book. The idea is that space, when you get to small enough sizes, is not continuous, but a kind of network of places, each being connected to other adjacent places, be each discrete and indivisible.

Find a book to explain accelerating velocity.

>> >>>There are a number of interesting ideas, and cosmogenists are working to
>> >>>narrow them down as well as dream up new ones.

>> >>You're right - dream.
>> >All science starts with dreams.

>> And most flake out.

>Yup. Science develops by trawling through ideas, filtering out those few that might be right.

Maybe.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thursday, 18 October 2018 21:25:15 UTC+1, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>

> Then what is "God"?
>

A good question. Its depends _whose_ god. You presumably think your God manages the afterlife stuff. You believe there's a god that responds to worship apparently.

That doesn't really work with a nerd in a physics laboratory.

> Current mass of the universe is unable to cause a crunch because the universe is
> expanding at an accelerated rate. What is there to reverse the increasing
> rate, turn it around and become a crunch.
>

With dark matter and dark energy it's really more complicated than that. The models of the universe on which that analysis was based don't look that accurate these days.

>
> >Find a book. The idea is that space, when you get to small enough sizes, is not continuous, but a kind of network of places, each being connected to other adjacent places, be each discrete and indivisible.
>
> Find a book to explain accelerating velocity.

See "Dark Energy". There's loads of work being done on that. It seems gravity isn't the only force controlling the large scale structure of the universe.

> >> And most flake out.
>
> >Yup. Science develops by trawling through ideas, filtering out those few that might be right.
>
> Maybe.

How do you thing science works

[duke]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
<malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 18 October 2018 21:25:15 UTC+1, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon

>> Then what is "God"?
>A good question. Its depends _whose_ god. You presumably think your God manages the afterlife stuff. You believe there's a god that responds to worship apparently.
>That doesn't really work with a nerd in a physics laboratory.

God is way ahead of nerds.

>> Current mass of the universe is unable to cause a crunch because the universe is
>> expanding at an accelerated rate. What is there to reverse the increasing
>> rate, turn it around and become a crunch.

>With dark matter and dark energy it's really more complicated than that. The models of the universe on which that analysis was based don't look that accurate these days.

Yet the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate even in the presence of
dark matter and energy. Which is still unable to slow expansion down.

>> >Find a book. The idea is that space, when you get to small enough sizes, is not continuous, but a kind of network of places, each being connected to other adjacent places, be each discrete and indivisible.
>> Find a book to explain accelerating velocity.
>See "Dark Energy". There's loads of work being done on that. It seems gravity isn't the only force controlling the large scale structure of the universe.

You miss the point of it's presence already.

[Oko Tillo]

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 18 October 2018 21:25:15 UTC+1, duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>
> >> Then what is "God"?
> >A good question. Its depends _whose_ god. You presumably think your God manages the afterlife stuff. You believe there's a god that responds to worship apparently.
> >That doesn't really work with a nerd in a physics laboratory.
>
> God is way ahead of nerds.
>
> >> Current mass of the universe is unable to cause a crunch because the universe is
> >> expanding at an accelerated rate. What is there to reverse the increasing
> >> rate, turn it around and become a crunch.
>

===

> >With dark matter and dark energy it's really more complicated than that. The models of the universe on which that analysis was based don't look that accurate these days.
>
> Yet the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate even in the presence of
> dark matter and energy. Which is still unable to slow expansion down.

Accelerating "even in the presence of" dark energy? "Unable to slow expansion down"?

Dark energy is a hypothesis which was suggested as the thing that
is *causing* the acceleration, not opposing it.


Oko

[duke]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT), Oko Tillo <f.spl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >> Current mass of the universe is unable to cause a crunch because the universe is
>> >> expanding at an accelerated rate. What is there to reverse the increasing
>> >> rate, turn it around and become a crunch.

>===
>> >With dark matter and dark energy it's really more complicated than that. The models of the universe on which that analysis was based don't look that accurate these days.

>> Yet the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate even in the presence of
>> dark matter and energy. Which is still unable to slow expansion down.

>Accelerating "even in the presence of" dark energy? "Unable to slow expansion down"?

That's what I said.

>Dark energy is a hypothesis which was suggested as the thing that
>is *causing* the acceleration, not opposing it.

If it's causing it, why would it show acceleration down. You're dealing in
black magic. Theory says that the universe will or should expand that
everything is out of 'contact' with everything else. There's nothing to reverse
anything.

>Oko

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 8:50:25 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT), Oko Tillo <f.spl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> Current mass of the universe is unable to cause a crunch because the universe is
> >> >> expanding at an accelerated rate. What is there to reverse the increasing
> >> >> rate, turn it around and become a crunch.
>
> >===
> >> >With dark matter and dark energy it's really more complicated than that. The models of the universe on which that analysis was based don't look that accurate these days.
>

==

> >> Yet the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate even in the presence of
> >> dark matter and energy. Which is still unable to slow expansion down.
>
> >Accelerating "even in the presence of" dark energy? "Unable to slow expansion down"?
>
> That's what I said.
>
> >Dark energy is a hypothesis which was suggested as the thing that
> >is *causing* the acceleration, not opposing it.
>


> If it's causing it, why would it show acceleration down.

<sigh>

Again: it's not "showing acceleration down"; it's *causing* that acceleration.

Or so the theory goes.

-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/20/the-counterintuitive-reason-why-dark-energy-makes-the-universe-accelerate/#46fed9d874c1

-- https://www.iflscience.com/space/why-universe-accelerating/


"The expansion of the universe is thought to have been
accelerating since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated
era roughly 5 billion years ago. Within the framework of general
relativity, an accelerating expansion can be accounted for by a
positive value of the cosmological constant Lambda, equivalent to
the presence of a positive vacuum energy, dubbed "dark energy".
While there are alternative possible explanations, the description
assuming dark energy (positive Lambda) is used in the current
standard model of cosmology,"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

> You're dealing in black magic. Theory says that the universe will or should expand that
> everything is out of 'contact' with everything else. There's nothing to reverse
> anything.

I didn't say one thing about that, did I?

What I did say is that:

+ Dark energy is a hypothesis which was suggested as the thing that
+ is *causing* the acceleration, not opposing it.

Not one word about "reverse anything". Not one word about "showing" acceleration down.

Oko