Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Curvature of Space. ?????
0 views
Skip to first unread message
HVAC
Nov 24, 2011, 11:13:44 AM11/24/11
to
On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>
>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>> TreBert
>>
>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> Then "nothing" must be a god?
Creation implies a creator.
There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
from somewhere...Who created the creator?
Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
bar..... It answers no questions.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>
>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>> TreBert
>>
>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> Then "nothing" must be a god?
Creation implies a creator.
There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
from somewhere...Who created the creator?
Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
bar..... It answers no questions.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
A Moose in Love
Nov 24, 2011, 12:38:07 PM11/24/11
to
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> >>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
> >>> TreBert
>
> >> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> > Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
> Creation implies a creator.
>
> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>
> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
> from somewhere...Who created the creator?
>
> Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
> bar..... It answers no questions.
>
Why is there anything? Why a universe? Why atoms? Why electrons?
>
> >> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> >>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
> >>> TreBert
>
> >> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> > Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
> Creation implies a creator.
>
> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>
> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
> from somewhere...Who created the creator?
>
> Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
> bar..... It answers no questions.
>
Where did they come from?
john
Nov 24, 2011, 1:04:27 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 11:38 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
All totally random chance, says QM, the
greatest creator of atheists in world history.
john
wrote:
greatest creator of atheists in world history.
john
Wally W.
Nov 24, 2011, 1:57:46 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>> TreBert
>>>
>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>
>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
>
>Creation implies a creator.
>
>There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>
>Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>from somewhere
You know this how?
>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>> TreBert
>>>
>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>
>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
>
>Creation implies a creator.
>
>There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>
>Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>from somewhere
Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
outside this universe?
We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
I can't say logic as we know it doesn't apply elsewhere, but the
construction "would have had to" implies certain knowledge about a
realm that is not accessible to us on our terms.
>...Who created the creator?
That may or may not be a well-formed question.
I don't believe it can be a fully informed question. See below.
>Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
>bar..... It answers no questions.
It doesn't answer *all* questions.
We don't know enough to ask *all* questions.
Note that every question has a premise. If the premise is wrong, the
question may be of no greater value than word salad. GIGO.
^_^ n_n
Nov 24, 2011, 2:00:10 PM11/24/11
to
There's a growing body of evidence from the fields of physics that's
really starting to explain how a universe could exist from nothing.
Even if that weren't an option though, you've got to be intellectually
impoverished to have no idea of other speculative origins than the sky
wizard speaking our universe into existence.
really starting to explain how a universe could exist from nothing.
Even if that weren't an option though, you've got to be intellectually
impoverished to have no idea of other speculative origins than the sky
wizard speaking our universe into existence.
HVAC
Nov 24, 2011, 2:03:12 PM11/24/11
to
On 11/24/2011 12:38 PM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>
>>
>> Creation implies a creator.
>>
>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>
>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>> from somewhere...Who created the creator?
>>
>> Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
>> bar..... It answers no questions.
>>
> Why is there anything? Why a universe? Why atoms? Why electrons?
> Where did they come from?
From an infinitely dense, infinitely hot singularity.
>
>>
>> Creation implies a creator.
>>
>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>
>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>> from somewhere...Who created the creator?
>>
>> Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
>> bar..... It answers no questions.
>>
> Why is there anything? Why a universe? Why atoms? Why electrons?
> Where did they come from?
If you understand the concept of 'virtual particles', and
they have absolutely been proven to exist, then it really
isn't much of a leap to grok how the universe may have come
into existence from 'nothing'.
Wally W.
Nov 24, 2011, 2:15:21 PM11/24/11
to
If your post is in response to me, it seems to address things I did
not say.
But what I said is conveniently snipped, so the relevance of your
comments to what I said cannot be observed within the context of your
post.
Smiler
Nov 24, 2011, 8:46:04 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:57:46 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>
>>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>>> TreBert
>>>>
>>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>>
>>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>
>>
>>Creation implies a creator.
>>
>>There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>
>>
No answer? Can we take it that you agree with that statement?
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>
>>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>>> TreBert
>>>>
>>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>>
>>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>
>>
>>Creation implies a creator.
>>
>>There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>
>>
>>Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come from somewhere
>
> You know this how?
evidence, came into supposed being without using special pleading.
> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
> outside this universe?
>
> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
> I can't say logic as we know it doesn't apply elsewhere, but the
> construction "would have had to" implies certain knowledge about a realm
> that is not accessible to us on our terms.
>
>>...Who created the creator?
>
> That may or may not be a well-formed question.
> I don't believe it can be a fully informed question. See below.
>
>>Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the bar..... It
>>answers no questions.
>
> But it does answer one question: Who created *this* universe.
creator created anything. Why does it have to be a 'who'?
> It doesn't answer *all* questions.
>
> We don't know enough to ask *all* questions.
> Note that every question has a premise. If the premise is wrong, the
> question may be of no greater value than word salad. GIGO.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Wally W.
Nov 24, 2011, 9:36:16 PM11/24/11
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:46:04 +0000, Smiler wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:57:46 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>>>> TreBert
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>>>
>>>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>>
>>>
>>>Creation implies a creator.
>>>
>>>There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>
>>>
>No answer? Can we take it that you agree with that statement?
No question was asked.
>On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:57:46 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>>>> TreBert
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>>>
>>>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>>
>>>
>>>Creation implies a creator.
>>>
>>>There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>
>>>
>No answer? Can we take it that you agree with that statement?
I didn't post to address that issue.
>>>Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come from somewhere
>>
>> You know this how?
>
>Please enlighten us as to how this supposed creator, for which there is no
>evidence, came into supposed being without using special pleading.
was stated as a certainty. I don't think we have enough information to
know that. Do you?
If you do, from where did you get that information?
>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>> outside this universe?
>>
>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>
>Then we cannot know anything about anything outside this universe.
possibility of information entering unbidden from outside this
universe.
>> I can't say logic as we know it doesn't apply elsewhere, but the
>> construction "would have had to" implies certain knowledge about a realm
>> that is not accessible to us on our terms.
>>
>>>...Who created the creator?
>>
>> That may or may not be a well-formed question.
>
>Non-answer noted.
Then you assume it is a complete and well-formed question. I do not.
>> I can't say logic as we know it doesn't apply elsewhere, but the
>> construction "would have had to" implies certain knowledge about a realm
>> that is not accessible to us on our terms.
>>
>>>...Who created the creator?
>>
>> That may or may not be a well-formed question.
>
>Non-answer noted.
Consider: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
One hopes it is an erroneous question.
There are countless examples of erroneous questions.
How do you know that "Who created the creator?" isn't an erroneous
question?
>> I don't believe it can be a fully informed question. See below.
>>
>
>Ad hominem.
the question "Who created the creator?" can be fully informed.
It has as one premise that the creator was created. From where did we
get the information that the creator *was* created?
>>>Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the bar..... It
>>>answers no questions.
>>
>> But it does answer one question: Who created *this* universe.
>
>Nope. There is no evidence for either any creator or that any supposed
>creator created anything. Why does it have to be a 'who'?
with the answer. That is a different issue.
>> It doesn't answer *all* questions.
>>
>> We don't know enough to ask *all* questions.
>
>Non-answer noted.
to ask *all* questions.
>> Note that every question has a premise. If the premise is wrong, the
>> question may be of no greater value than word salad. GIGO.
>
>That's exactly the same for answers that suppose things not in evidence.
ckdb...@gmail.com
Nov 24, 2011, 10:10:04 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 11:13 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> >>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
> >>> TreBert
>
> >> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> > Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
> Creation implies a creator.
>
You have yet to prove that a creation took place, rather than a
>
> >> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> >>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
> >>> TreBert
>
> >> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> > Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
> Creation implies a creator.
>
formation though purely natural forces. You religionists are always
trying to make implications in the same manner as putting the cart
before the horse.
G=EMC^2
Nov 24, 2011, 11:17:12 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 12:38 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Where did they come from?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My G=EMC^2 is the equation for universes. Gravity created all the
forces .In the macro realm we see Earth's gravity as very weak. Also
we see it creating "supernova's with its compression force creating an
explosion greater than a hundred billion Suns. In the micro realm
gravity's force is 10^33 in tons. and thats in a Planck size area.It
shows gravity and gluons are two sides to the same coin.
Convex&Concurve are two faces of gravity. TreBert
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
My G=EMC^2 is the equation for universes. Gravity created all the
forces .In the macro realm we see Earth's gravity as very weak. Also
we see it creating "supernova's with its compression force creating an
explosion greater than a hundred billion Suns. In the micro realm
gravity's force is 10^33 in tons. and thats in a Planck size area.It
shows gravity and gluons are two sides to the same coin.
Convex&Concurve are two faces of gravity. TreBert
G=EMC^2
Nov 24, 2011, 11:25:13 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 10:10 pm, "ckdbig...@gmail.com" <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Knowing there was always something gives our thinking a head start in
creating universes. Virtual particles are intrensic to all cosmic
space.and so is gravity. TreBert
wrote:
creating universes. Virtual particles are intrensic to all cosmic
space.and so is gravity. TreBert
thomas p
Nov 25, 2011, 2:12:44 AM11/25/11
to
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Why did you ignore the point? Where did the creator come from?
thomas p
Nov 25, 2011, 2:16:13 AM11/25/11
to
On 24 Nov., 19:57, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
> >On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
> >On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> >>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
> >>>> TreBert
>
> >>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> >> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
> >Creation implies a creator.
>
> >There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>
> >Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
> >from somewhere
>
> You know this how?
>
> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
> outside this universe?
>
> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>
> >>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> >>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
> >>>> TreBert
>
> >>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>
> >> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
> >Creation implies a creator.
>
> >There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>
> >Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
> >from somewhere
>
> You know this how?
>
> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
> outside this universe?
>
> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
creator.
>
> I can't say logic as we know it doesn't apply elsewhere, but the
> construction "would have had to" implies certain knowledge about a
> realm that is not accessible to us on our terms.
>
> >...Who created the creator?
>
> That may or may not be a well-formed question.
>
> I don't believe it can be a fully informed question. See below.
>
> >Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
> >bar..... It answers no questions.
>
> But it does answer one question: Who created *this* universe.
>
> It doesn't answer *all* questions.
>
> We don't know enough to ask *all* questions.
it" for example. It doesn't really explain anything though.
>
> Note that every question has a premise. If the premise is wrong, the
Apply the above to your reasoning above.
Wally W.
Nov 25, 2011, 2:56:17 AM11/25/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:16:13 -0800 (PST), thomas p wrote:
>On 24 Nov., 19:57, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>> >On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>> >>>> TreBert
>>
>> >>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>
>> >> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>
>> >Creation implies a creator.
>>
>> >There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>
>> >Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>> >from somewhere
>>
>> You know this how?
>>
>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>> outside this universe?
>>
>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>
>
>Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>creator.
Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
>On 24 Nov., 19:57, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>> >On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>> >>>> TreBert
>>
>> >>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>
>> >> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>
>> >Creation implies a creator.
>>
>> >There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>
>> >Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>> >from somewhere
>>
>> You know this how?
>>
>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>> outside this universe?
>>
>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>
>
>Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>creator.
have had to come from somewhere."
>> I can't say logic as we know it doesn't apply elsewhere, but the
>> construction "would have had to" implies certain knowledge about a
>> realm that is not accessible to us on our terms.
>>
>> >...Who created the creator?
>>
>> That may or may not be a well-formed question.
>>
>> I don't believe it can be a fully informed question. See below.
>>
>> >Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
>> >bar..... It answers no questions.
>>
>> But it does answer one question: Who created *this* universe.
>
>It assumes that there is such a thing as a creator.
>> It doesn't answer *all* questions.
>>
>> We don't know enough to ask *all* questions.
>
>But we can make up any answer we want to answer any question, "god did
>it" for example. It doesn't really explain anything though.
Apply a force of 10 newtons to a mass of 10 kilograms for 10 seconds.
If the mass was initially at rest, how fast will the mass be traveling
at the end of 10 seconds?
This question can be *answered* using Newton's formula, F=ma.
Newton's formula doesn't *explain* the speed, it only describes it.
>> Note that every question has a premise. If the premise is wrong, the
>> question may be of no greater value than word salad. GIGO.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
>Apply the above to your reasoning above.
Was it over your head?
HVAC
Nov 25, 2011, 7:04:54 AM11/25/11
to
On 11/25/2011 2:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>
>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>
>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>> >from somewhere
>>>
>>> You know this how?
>>>
>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>> outside this universe?
>>>
>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>
>>
>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>> creator.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
> have had to come from somewhere."
And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>
>>>
>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>
>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>
>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>> >from somewhere
>>>
>>> You know this how?
>>>
>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>> outside this universe?
>>>
>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>
>>
>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>> creator.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
> have had to come from somewhere."
G=EMC^2
Nov 25, 2011, 9:21:41 AM11/25/11
to
Painius
Nov 25, 2011, 12:26:55 PM11/25/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>> TreBert
>>>
>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>
>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
>
>Creation implies a creator.
Yes, but why must that creator be a sentient being, which is what you
>On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>> TreBert
>>>
>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>
>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>
>
>Creation implies a creator.
seem to imply.
>There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
creator.
>Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>from somewhere...Who created the creator?
everlasting life, an immortal being who has always been and who always
will be. It is only the atheistic mind that sets forth your
requirement. Yet, in my mind, your question is valid.
>Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
>bar..... It answers no questions.
as set forth by the old coot...
http://wolter.painellsworth.net/
...there is the need to invoke a "supra-cosmic overpressure" or (SCO)
that is the name given to the pressure required to push space into
matter and cause gravitation. And yet, just like there is no known
cause for the Big Bang, and even though Wolter's CBB model *does*
explain the cause of the observations that lead science toward the Big
Bang hypothesis, that is as far as Wolter went. He did not go further
and explain the source of the SCO. The old coot did recognize this
and acknowledge it. As you say, the CBB model moves the bar, and in
doing so explains many things, like GR, SR and gravitation, however
inasmuch as a "source" (or "creator", if you will) of the SCO, the CBB
model doesn't go there.
However, in the mind of many religious men and women, when the bar is
raised as high as God, then the bar need move no higher.
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
Painius
Nov 25, 2011, 12:29:01 PM11/25/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:03:12 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/2011 12:38 PM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>
>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>
>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>> from somewhere...Who created the creator?
>>>
>>> Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
>>> bar..... It answers no questions.
>>>
>> Why is there anything? Why a universe? Why atoms? Why electrons?
>> Where did they come from?
>
>
> From an infinitely dense, infinitely hot singularity.
>
>If you understand the concept of 'virtual particles', and
>they have absolutely been proven to exist, then it really
>isn't much of a leap to grok how the universe may have come
>into existence from 'nothing'.
If you truly believe that, then you have solved what the source of
>On 11/24/2011 12:38 PM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>
>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>
>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>> from somewhere...Who created the creator?
>>>
>>> Saying that a creator created the universe only moves the
>>> bar..... It answers no questions.
>>>
>> Why is there anything? Why a universe? Why atoms? Why electrons?
>> Where did they come from?
>
>
> From an infinitely dense, infinitely hot singularity.
>
>If you understand the concept of 'virtual particles', and
>they have absolutely been proven to exist, then it really
>isn't much of a leap to grok how the universe may have come
>into existence from 'nothing'.
"dark matter" is.
Painius
Nov 25, 2011, 12:48:04 PM11/25/11
to
the number of atheists in the world increased significantly with the
advent of quantum mechanics.
Can you cite any facts or figures that support this?
Painius
Nov 25, 2011, 1:06:07 PM11/25/11
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:04:54 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/25/2011 2:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>>
>>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>>> >from somewhere
>>>>
>>>> You know this how?
>>>>
>>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>>> outside this universe?
>>>>
>>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>>> creator.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
>> have had to come from somewhere."
>
>And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
That wasn't what you stated...
>On 11/25/2011 2:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>>
>>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>>> >from somewhere
>>>>
>>>> You know this how?
>>>>
>>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>>> outside this universe?
>>>>
>>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>>> creator.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
>> have had to come from somewhere."
>
>And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>>
>>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>>> >from somewhere
But since it's you, and you're such a fine god, the main need that the
creator was created to fulfill was to make people (way back when and
also now) feel safe and secure. Whether or not that's a "false
security" makes no difference to those who created the creator. The
presence of a creator makes people feel safe and secure enough to be
able to think up their next move and not have to put up with their
chattering teeth.
Another need is to help people deal with the death of a loved one.
A creator actually fulfills many needs.
Since atheists do not have a creator to fall back on, then they must
fulfill these needs (if indeed they have these needs) in other ways.
Wally W.
Nov 25, 2011, 11:58:13 PM11/25/11
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:04:54 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>On 11/25/2011 2:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>>
>>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>>> >from somewhere
>>>>
>>>> You know this how?
>>>>
>>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>>> outside this universe?
>>>>
>>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>>> creator.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
>> have had to come from somewhere."
>
>
>And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>On 11/25/2011 2:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>>
>>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>>> >from somewhere
>>>>
>>>> You know this how?
>>>>
>>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>>> outside this universe?
>>>>
>>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>>> creator.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
>> have had to come from somewhere."
>
>
>And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
somewhere."
I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
If you know it to be a true statement, please explain how you came to
this knowledge.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 26, 2011, 12:15:31 AM11/26/11
to
He merely applied the same "reasoning" used by morons who insist the
universe needed a creator
Stop pretending.
You don't even fool yourself.
Joe Bruno
Nov 26, 2011, 12:19:39 AM11/26/11
to
Still slinging the same groundless bullshit?
Olrik
Nov 26, 2011, 12:37:26 AM11/26/11
to
Get help, moron.
Wally W.
Nov 26, 2011, 12:52:03 AM11/26/11
to
moronic. Yet you call me an idiot.
>Stop pretending.
No pretense. I don't believe we know a "creator would have had to come
from somewhere."
>You don't even fool yourself.
One who adopts moronic reasoning to support his presuppositions might
be trying to fool himself.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 26, 2011, 1:19:03 AM11/26/11
to
tj Frazir
Nov 26, 2011, 1:22:14 AM11/26/11
to
tj Frazir
Nov 26, 2011, 1:23:55 AM11/26/11
to
genthumbashx1.jpeg
Address:http://bigbluetechnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/genthumbashx1.jpeg
Changed:1:55 AM on Monday, March 7, 2011
Its solid ..broom it off and refloat it.
This belongs in aa museum
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Address:http://bigbluetechnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/genthumbashx1.jpeg
Changed:1:55 AM on Monday, March 7, 2011
Its solid ..broom it off and refloat it.
This belongs in aa museum
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Joe Bruno
Nov 26, 2011, 3:08:42 AM11/26/11
to
On Nov 25, 10:19 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
You have proven no such thing, LIAR.
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 6:59:47 AM11/26/11
to
On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>>
>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>
> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>
> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
> somewhere."
>
> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>
>>
>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>
> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>
> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
> somewhere."
>
> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 7:08:59 AM11/26/11
to
On 11/25/2011 12:26 PM, Painius wrote:
>
> and acknowledge it. As you say, the CBB model moves the bar, and in
> doing so explains many things, like GR, SR and gravitation, however
> inasmuch as a "source" (or "creator", if you will) of the SCO, the CBB
> model doesn't go there.
What caused the big bang to bang is currently unknown and
>
> and acknowledge it. As you say, the CBB model moves the bar, and in
> doing so explains many things, like GR, SR and gravitation, however
> inasmuch as a "source" (or "creator", if you will) of the SCO, the CBB
> model doesn't go there.
probably is unknowable. Our ability to describe the conditions
at the very beginning of the universe break down at the singularity.
> However, in the mind of many religious men and women, when the bar is
> raised as high as God, then the bar need move no higher.
was carried aboard a boat during a flood that encompassed the globe.
I'll let you ponder exactly how much weight their opinion is given
in the scientific community.
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 11:12:21 AM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 07:08:59 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/25/2011 12:26 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> and acknowledge it. As you say, the CBB model moves the bar, and in
>> doing so explains many things, like GR, SR and gravitation, however
>> inasmuch as a "source" (or "creator", if you will) of the SCO, the CBB
>> model doesn't go there.
>
>
>What caused the big bang to bang is currently unknown and
>probably is unknowable. Our ability to describe the conditions
>at the very beginning of the universe break down at the singularity.
>
>
>> However, in the mind of many religious men and women, when the bar is
>> raised as high as God, then the bar need move no higher.
>
>
>Ya. And these are the same people that believe every animal on earth
>was carried aboard a boat during a flood that encompassed the globe.
>
>I'll let you ponder exactly how much weight their opinion is given
>in the scientific community.
Ah... so there actually IS something that's "less than nothing", eh?
>On 11/25/2011 12:26 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> and acknowledge it. As you say, the CBB model moves the bar, and in
>> doing so explains many things, like GR, SR and gravitation, however
>> inasmuch as a "source" (or "creator", if you will) of the SCO, the CBB
>> model doesn't go there.
>
>
>What caused the big bang to bang is currently unknown and
>probably is unknowable. Our ability to describe the conditions
>at the very beginning of the universe break down at the singularity.
>
>
>> However, in the mind of many religious men and women, when the bar is
>> raised as high as God, then the bar need move no higher.
>
>
>Ya. And these are the same people that believe every animal on earth
>was carried aboard a boat during a flood that encompassed the globe.
>
>I'll let you ponder exactly how much weight their opinion is given
>in the scientific community.
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 12:37:46 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 11:12 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> What caused the big bang to bang is currently unknown and
>> probably is unknowable. Our ability to describe the conditions
>> at the very beginning of the universe break down at the singularity.
>>
>>
>>> However, in the mind of many religious men and women, when the bar is
>>> raised as high as God, then the bar need move no higher.
>>
>>
>> Ya. And these are the same people that believe every animal on earth
>> was carried aboard a boat during a flood that encompassed the globe.
>>
>> I'll let you ponder exactly how much weight their opinion is given
>> in the scientific community.
>
> Ah... so there actually IS something that's "less than nothing", eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag3NlK6Jv2k&feature=related
>
>>
>> What caused the big bang to bang is currently unknown and
>> probably is unknowable. Our ability to describe the conditions
>> at the very beginning of the universe break down at the singularity.
>>
>>
>>> However, in the mind of many religious men and women, when the bar is
>>> raised as high as God, then the bar need move no higher.
>>
>>
>> Ya. And these are the same people that believe every animal on earth
>> was carried aboard a boat during a flood that encompassed the globe.
>>
>> I'll let you ponder exactly how much weight their opinion is given
>> in the scientific community.
>
> Ah... so there actually IS something that's "less than nothing", eh?
No doubt.
tj Frazir
Nov 26, 2011, 1:28:44 PM11/26/11
to
50000 SF for 130 million.
allmost erything lights up.
its an illusion ..and then all th clear windows are 30 to 40 feet deep .
walk down a hall into a all clear dome 105 feet down beside a perfect
wreck.
all white sand ...
It looks like the bottom of the tropics ..
except the water is soooooo clear visib is 250 feet .
Thats because its not salt water !!!!!
My blue laser works so well in salt water not because of water but
because salt.
I fresh water the blue laser is replaced with a red one.
You dont nead a laser to see 225 feet...in michigan genthumbashx1.jpeg
allmost erything lights up.
its an illusion ..and then all th clear windows are 30 to 40 feet deep .
walk down a hall into a all clear dome 105 feet down beside a perfect
wreck.
all white sand ...
It looks like the bottom of the tropics ..
except the water is soooooo clear visib is 250 feet .
Thats because its not salt water !!!!!
My blue laser works so well in salt water not because of water but
because salt.
I fresh water the blue laser is replaced with a red one.
You dont nead a laser to see 225 feet...in michigan genthumbashx1.jpeg
Address:http://bigbluetechnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/genthumbashx1.jpeg
Changed:1:55 AM on Monday, March 7, 2011
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Changed:1:55 AM on Monday, March 7, 2011
tj Frazir
Nov 26, 2011, 1:37:47 PM11/26/11
to
f68c12a3-a828-4f60-808a-7258d74057db.jpg
Address:http://www.century21.ca/Images/43734/f68c12a3-a828-4f60-808a-7258d74057db.jpg
Changed:9:49 AM on Tuesday, August 4, 2009
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Address:http://www.century21.ca/Images/43734/f68c12a3-a828-4f60-808a-7258d74057db.jpg
Changed:9:49 AM on Tuesday, August 4, 2009
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Wally W.
Nov 26, 2011, 6:13:32 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>
>> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>>
>> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>> somewhere."
>>
>> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>
>
>I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>
>> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>>
>> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>> somewhere."
>>
>> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>
>
>I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
G=EMC^2
Nov 26, 2011, 6:45:12 PM11/26/11
to
Read the bible and think logic. TreBert
Wally W.
Nov 26, 2011, 7:07:23 PM11/26/11
to
>Read the bible and think logic. TreBert
Where is your logical proof for the assertion, "the 'creator' doesn't
exist?"
Androcles
Nov 26, 2011, 7:41:27 PM11/26/11
to
"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:djv2d7t9osuuh6lbf...@4ax.com...
If the universe needs a creator then the creator is part of the universe,
hence the creator requires a creator and it's turtles all the way down.
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
Augustus De Morgan
If the universe does not need a creator then the creator does not
need to exist, burden of proof is upon the claimant. Where is your
logical proof for the assertion, "the 'creator' exists?"
Wally W.
Nov 26, 2011, 8:33:34 PM11/26/11
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:41:27 -0000, Androcles wrote:
>
>"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message
>news:djv2d7t9osuuh6lbf...@4ax.com...
>| On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:45:12 -0800 (PST), G=EMC^2 wrote:
>|
>| >On Nov 26, 6:13 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>| >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>| >> >On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>| >>
>| >> >>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>| >>
>| >> >> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>| >>
>| >> >> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>| >> >> somewhere."
>| >>
>| >> >> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>| >>
>| >> >I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>| >>
>| >> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>| >> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>| >> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>| >>
>| >> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>| >
>| >Gods are "hocus" and "Pocus" Heaven and hell are two crazy houses
>|
>| More unsubstantiated assertions.
>|
>| >Read the bible and think logic. TreBert
>|
>| A miracle may set aside the laws of physics. Why not logic?
>|
>| Where is your logical proof for the assertion, "the 'creator' doesn't
>| exist?"
>|
>The universe is everything there is, by definition of 'universe'.
Everything there is ... where?
>
>"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message
>news:djv2d7t9osuuh6lbf...@4ax.com...
>| On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:45:12 -0800 (PST), G=EMC^2 wrote:
>|
>| >On Nov 26, 6:13 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>| >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>| >> >On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>| >>
>| >> >>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>| >>
>| >> >> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>| >>
>| >> >> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>| >> >> somewhere."
>| >>
>| >> >> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>| >>
>| >> >I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>| >>
>| >> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>| >> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>| >> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>| >>
>| >> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>| >
>| >Gods are "hocus" and "Pocus" Heaven and hell are two crazy houses
>|
>| More unsubstantiated assertions.
>|
>| >Read the bible and think logic. TreBert
>|
>| A miracle may set aside the laws of physics. Why not logic?
>|
>| Where is your logical proof for the assertion, "the 'creator' doesn't
>| exist?"
>|
>The universe is everything there is, by definition of 'universe'.
Why do we need the term multiverse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical set
of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we
consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists
and can exist
If there is no "outside" our universe, where would wormholes be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
A wormhole is, in theory, much like a tunnel with two ends each in
separate points in spacetime.
Do you discount the areas of physics which discuss multiverses and
wormholes?
>If the universe needs a creator then the creator is part of the universe,
>hence the creator requires a creator and it's turtles all the way down.
:Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
:outside this universe?
:We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
:We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
> "Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
> And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
> And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
> While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
>Augustus De Morgan
That is poetry, not science. We have no way to verify "and so on" to
> And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
> And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
> While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
>Augustus De Morgan
infinitely small scales.
>If the universe does not need a creator then the creator does not
>need to exist,
Does the universe need computers to exist?
No.
But computers do, in fact, exist.
>burden of proof is upon the claimant.
>| >> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>Where is your
>logical proof for the assertion, "the 'creator' exists?"
I didn't make that assertion in this thread.
>logical proof for the assertion, "the 'creator' exists?"
Nor is it the topic of this subthread.
Two assertions were made as unqualified certainties:
1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
Neither assertion has been supported by anyone, including you.
2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
I don't believe we can know with certainty that either statement above
is true.
If you do:
The "burden of proof is upon the claimant."
Androcles
Nov 26, 2011, 8:42:13 PM11/26/11
to
news:5i33d7l5kms7dd6v1...@4ax.com...
Not relevant to the definition.
| Why do we need the term multiverse?
I don't. Therefore we don't. Your question was answered
but you failed to answer mine. Fuck off, imbecile.
| Why do we need the term multiverse?
but you failed to answer mine. Fuck off, imbecile.
Wally W.
Nov 26, 2011, 8:56:41 PM11/26/11
to
Can you say inflated ego?
Hagakure Kikigaki 葉隠聞書
Nov 26, 2011, 9:04:47 PM11/26/11
to
How do you know that a creator does not exist?
Androcles
Nov 26, 2011, 9:08:08 PM11/26/11
to
news:9663d7hgqnr0oc28m...@4ax.com...
Standard... where?
Logic has its own standard and you don't meet it. Fuck off, cretin.
Logic has its own standard and you don't meet it. Fuck off, cretin.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 26, 2011, 9:29:15 PM11/26/11
to
Hint:
John Baker
Nov 26, 2011, 9:36:23 PM11/26/11
to
I don't pretend to *know* that a creator *doesn't* exist, but I see no
logical reason to believe that he/she/it *does* exist, and until you
God-bothering fuckwits can come up with something more convincing that
personal beliefs and millenia-old fairy tales to back up your claims,
that isn't likely to change.
Wally W.
Nov 26, 2011, 10:20:27 PM11/26/11
to
Do you see a difference between these statements?
1. I acknowledge no evidence for a creator.
2. The creator does not exist.
The first is a personal position.
The second tries to pass as a fact without any justification.
One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
consequences which may result.
I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
from falling if I lose my balance.
Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
religious position.
Free Lunch
Nov 26, 2011, 10:27:21 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:20:27 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:29:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:13:32 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>>>>> somewhere."
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>>
>>>Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>>>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>
>>What "the creator", imbecile?
>>
>>Hint:
>
>The creator of the universe. Please do keep up.
>
>Do you see a difference between these statements?
>1. I acknowledge no evidence for a creator.
>2. The creator does not exist.
>
>The first is a personal position.
>The second tries to pass as a fact without any justification.
Let's try the objective one: There is no evidence for such a creator.
creator exists.
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:29:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:13:32 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>>>>> somewhere."
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>>
>>>Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>>>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>
>>What "the creator", imbecile?
>>
>>Hint:
>
>The creator of the universe. Please do keep up.
>
>Do you see a difference between these statements?
>1. I acknowledge no evidence for a creator.
>2. The creator does not exist.
>
>The first is a personal position.
>The second tries to pass as a fact without any justification.
>
>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>consequences which may result.
>
>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>from falling if I lose my balance.
>
>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>religious position.
And the facts are that no evidence supports the claim that such a
>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>consequences which may result.
>
>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>from falling if I lose my balance.
>
>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>religious position.
creator exists.
walksalone
Nov 26, 2011, 11:01:53 PM11/26/11
to
Hagakure Kikigaki 葉隠聞書 <haga...@gmail.invalid> wrote in
news:56ord6....@news.alt.net:
Follow-up set 2-D only newsgroup I read
That's a rather ambiguous term, creator. If you're referring to a creator
god, you have the additional problem of which one? If you are referring
to a human, which one. There are no doubts about it, humans do exist. And
some people could say, they do create.
On the other hand, there are those who claim Creator gods exist.
Which one are you concerned over?
The way you phrase or attempt to get this to the word creator, one could
almost assume, quite safely, that you're referring to a deity construct.
One is beyond me because creation does not need a deity's, even though
some people so claim.
walksalone who has no doubt that another cat dance is in progress. But
then again, I could be wrong and so I'm going to give the other person an
opportunity to display his prowess in the genteel art of communication
with other individuals that may not automatically agree with him.
1
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking
nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such
an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn."
-- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
news:56ord6....@news.alt.net:
Follow-up set 2-D only newsgroup I read
god, you have the additional problem of which one? If you are referring
to a human, which one. There are no doubts about it, humans do exist. And
some people could say, they do create.
On the other hand, there are those who claim Creator gods exist.
Which one are you concerned over?
The way you phrase or attempt to get this to the word creator, one could
almost assume, quite safely, that you're referring to a deity construct.
One is beyond me because creation does not need a deity's, even though
some people so claim.
walksalone who has no doubt that another cat dance is in progress. But
then again, I could be wrong and so I'm going to give the other person an
opportunity to display his prowess in the genteel art of communication
with other individuals that may not automatically agree with him.
1
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking
nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such
an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn."
-- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Joe Bruno
Nov 26, 2011, 11:29:55 PM11/26/11
to
G O D or
A L L A H
Does that tingle one of the 3 cells in your primitive brain???
Wally W.
Nov 27, 2011, 12:26:43 AM11/27/11
to
Not the same thing.
The distinction was explained well in a previous thread. One excerpt
from that thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/03621c475ffcff18?hl=en
You have CHOSEN for YOURSELF the requirements by which you will
believe something is true.
>>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>>consequences which may result.
>>
>>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>>from falling if I lose my balance.
>>
>>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>>religious position.
>
>And the facts are that no evidence supports the claim that such a
>creator exists.
no *scientific* evidence supports the claim that such a creator
exists.
A claim that can't be tested scientifically is not invalidated by a
lack of *scientific* evidence.
These are religious, not scientific, statements:
Hagakure Kikigaki 葉隠聞書
Nov 27, 2011, 5:42:11 AM11/27/11
to
John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:04:47 GMT, Hagakure Kikigaki 葉� �?�書
> I don't pretend to *know* that a creator *doesn't* exist, but I see no
> logical reason to believe that he/she/it *does* exist, and until you
> God-bothering fuckwits can come up with something more convincing that
> personal beliefs and millenia-old fairy tales to back up your claims,
> that isn't likely to change.
Backup what claims? Are you some sort of nutjob or something?
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:04:47 GMT, Hagakure Kikigaki 葉� �?�書
> <haga...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> G=EMC^2<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 6:13 pm, Wally W.<ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>>
>>> Gods are "hocus" and "Pocus"
>>
>> That's your stock in trade answer to a completely different question.
>>
>> How do you know that a creator does not exist?
>
> How do you know that one does?
Where did I say there was one?
>
>> G=EMC^2<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 6:13 pm, Wally W.<ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>>
>>> Gods are "hocus" and "Pocus"
>>
>> That's your stock in trade answer to a completely different question.
>>
>> How do you know that a creator does not exist?
>
> How do you know that one does?
> I don't pretend to *know* that a creator *doesn't* exist, but I see no
> logical reason to believe that he/she/it *does* exist, and until you
> God-bothering fuckwits can come up with something more convincing that
> personal beliefs and millenia-old fairy tales to back up your claims,
> that isn't likely to change.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 27, 2011, 6:24:04 AM11/27/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:20:27 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:29:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:13:32 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>>>>> somewhere."
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>>
>>>Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>>>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>
>>What "the creator", imbecile?
>>
>>Hint:
>
>The creator of the universe. Please do keep up.
What "the creator of the universe", imbecile?
>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:29:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:13:32 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>>>>> somewhere."
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>>
>>>Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>>>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>
>>What "the creator", imbecile?
>>
>>Hint:
>
>The creator of the universe. Please do keep up.
Your dishonest use of language presumes one.
>Do you see a difference between these statements?
>1. I acknowledge no evidence for a creator.
>2. The creator does not exist.
>The first is a personal position.
>The second tries to pass as a fact without any justification.
>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>consequences which may result.
Just stop using dishonest language to accuse others of doing things
they're not.
>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>from falling if I lose my balance.
Demonstrate this hypothetical creator to the same extent as gravity.
Then you might have a point.'
>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>religious position.
Please try to be less dishonest next time.
HVAC
Nov 27, 2011, 8:18:26 AM11/27/11
to
On 11/26/2011 6:13 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>
> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>
> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
Because 'creation' doesn't exist.
>
>>
>>
>> I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>
> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>
> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
'Creation' implies a 'creator'.
No 'creation' = No 'creator'
But putting that aside for a moment....Let's assume that you
are correct. Let's assume that some unknown 'creator' was so
powerful and had such a high degree of technology that he was
able, through means unknown, to bring our universe into being.
Why would such a creature...With the power to create universes,
care even one tiny bit whether or not *I* worshiped him?
Doesn't that very idea seem stupid?
Cujo DeSockpuppet
Nov 27, 2011, 9:14:41 AM11/27/11
to
HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in news:jatd9n$ko8$1...@hvac.motzarella.org:
> On 11/26/2011 6:13 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>
>> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>
>> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>
>
> Because 'creation' doesn't exist.
> 'Creation' implies a 'creator'.
> No 'creation' = No 'creator'
>
>
> But putting that aside for a moment....Let's assume that you
> are correct. Let's assume that some unknown 'creator' was so
> powerful and had such a high degree of technology that he was
> able, through means unknown, to bring our universe into being.
>
> Why would such a creature...With the power to create universes,
> care even one tiny bit whether or not *I* worshiped him?
>
> Doesn't that very idea seem stupid?
If you can conceive a creator, the same logic must imply that he's just
like us and wants attention and credit for eternity. Then again, the same
kind of beliefs came up with the Earth being only 6000 years old.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"The dump is a good place too." -Edmond Wollmann, keeping his options
open for a future place for storing his unsold books.
> On 11/26/2011 6:13 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>
>> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>
>> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>
>
> Because 'creation' doesn't exist.
> 'Creation' implies a 'creator'.
> No 'creation' = No 'creator'
>
>
> But putting that aside for a moment....Let's assume that you
> are correct. Let's assume that some unknown 'creator' was so
> powerful and had such a high degree of technology that he was
> able, through means unknown, to bring our universe into being.
>
> Why would such a creature...With the power to create universes,
> care even one tiny bit whether or not *I* worshiped him?
>
> Doesn't that very idea seem stupid?
like us and wants attention and credit for eternity. Then again, the same
kind of beliefs came up with the Earth being only 6000 years old.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"The dump is a good place too." -Edmond Wollmann, keeping his options
open for a future place for storing his unsold books.
ala
Nov 27, 2011, 9:32:40 AM11/27/11
to
"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:jatgkh$fjf$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in news:jatd9n$ko8$1...@hvac.motzarella.org:
>
>> On 11/26/2011 6:13 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>>
>>> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>>> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>
>>
>> Because 'creation' doesn't exist.
>> 'Creation' implies a 'creator'.
>> No 'creation' = No 'creator'
>>
>>
>> But putting that aside for a moment....Let's assume that you
>> are correct. Let's assume that some unknown 'creator' was so
>> powerful and had such a high degree of technology that he was
>> able, through means unknown, to bring our universe into being.
>>
>> Why would such a creature...With the power to create universes,
>> care even one tiny bit whether or not *I* worshiped him?
>>
>> Doesn't that very idea seem stupid?
>
> If you can conceive a creator, the same logic must imply that he's just
> like us and wants attention and credit for eternity. Then again, the same
> kind of beliefs came up with the Earth being only 6000 years old.
More to the point, if he made us in his image, and we are flawed, then he is
>
>> On 11/26/2011 6:13 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.
>>>
>>> Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
>>> 1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>> 2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"
>>
>>
>> Because 'creation' doesn't exist.
>> 'Creation' implies a 'creator'.
>> No 'creation' = No 'creator'
>>
>>
>> But putting that aside for a moment....Let's assume that you
>> are correct. Let's assume that some unknown 'creator' was so
>> powerful and had such a high degree of technology that he was
>> able, through means unknown, to bring our universe into being.
>>
>> Why would such a creature...With the power to create universes,
>> care even one tiny bit whether or not *I* worshiped him?
>>
>> Doesn't that very idea seem stupid?
>
> If you can conceive a creator, the same logic must imply that he's just
> like us and wants attention and credit for eternity. Then again, the same
> kind of beliefs came up with the Earth being only 6000 years old.
too being omnipotent, omni-incredibly-flawed
Free Lunch
Nov 27, 2011, 12:15:17 PM11/27/11
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:26:43 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in
Really?
>The distinction was explained well in a previous thread. One excerpt
>from that thread:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/03621c475ffcff18?hl=en
>You have CHOSEN for YOURSELF the requirements by which you will
>believe something is true.
Ah, yes, the one where the excuses for believers not being able to find
any evidence for any gods fly fast and loose.
Trying to redefine the word "evidence" to allow you to offer misguided
arguments and badly founded assumptions is not going to actually get you
any evidence. Let me repeat: There is no evidence for such a creator.
None at all of any sort. The only way you claim to have evidence is to
misuse the English language to the point of lying.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is point to one piece of actual
evidence for such a creator. I know you cannot, but I will be happy to
respond to any attempt you make.
>>>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>>>consequences which may result.
>>>
>>>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>>>from falling if I lose my balance.
>>>
>>>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>>>religious position.
>>
>>And the facts are that no evidence supports the claim that such a
>>creator exists.
>
>Again, not the same thing:
>no *scientific* evidence supports the claim that such a creator
>exists.
No evidence at all.
>A claim that can't be tested scientifically is not invalidated by a
>lack of *scientific* evidence.
>
>These are religious, not scientific, statements:
>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
I have made neither statement.
I have pointed out that there is no evidence. You are free to show me
that I am mistaken by offering evidence, not by playing with words.
>The distinction was explained well in a previous thread. One excerpt
>from that thread:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/03621c475ffcff18?hl=en
>You have CHOSEN for YOURSELF the requirements by which you will
>believe something is true.
any evidence for any gods fly fast and loose.
Trying to redefine the word "evidence" to allow you to offer misguided
arguments and badly founded assumptions is not going to actually get you
any evidence. Let me repeat: There is no evidence for such a creator.
None at all of any sort. The only way you claim to have evidence is to
misuse the English language to the point of lying.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is point to one piece of actual
evidence for such a creator. I know you cannot, but I will be happy to
respond to any attempt you make.
>>>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>>>consequences which may result.
>>>
>>>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>>>from falling if I lose my balance.
>>>
>>>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>>>religious position.
>>
>>And the facts are that no evidence supports the claim that such a
>>creator exists.
>
>Again, not the same thing:
>no *scientific* evidence supports the claim that such a creator
>exists.
>A claim that can't be tested scientifically is not invalidated by a
>lack of *scientific* evidence.
>
>These are religious, not scientific, statements:
>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
I have pointed out that there is no evidence. You are free to show me
that I am mistaken by offering evidence, not by playing with words.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 27, 2011, 1:13:44 PM11/27/11
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:15:17 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
"THE creator " is Willy Wanker's unjustified presumption he uses to
invent straw men to attack.
>>>Let's try the objective one: There is no evidence for such a creator.
>>
>>There is no *scientific* evidence for such a creator.
>>
>>Not the same thing.
>
>Really?
Willy wanker was asked for evidence.
Any evidence.
If he has any other kind than scientific he should have provided it.
As long as it leads to this hypothetical creator as a conclusion.
But instead he invents a straw man about scientific evidence.
>>The distinction was explained well in a previous thread. One excerpt
>>from that thread:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/03621c475ffcff18?hl=en
>>You have CHOSEN for YOURSELF the requirements by which you will
>>believe something is true.
An outright lie.
Evidence is evidence for something is whatever leads to it as a
conclusion.
>Ah, yes, the one where the excuses for believers not being able to find
>any evidence for any gods fly fast and loose.
Does they even fool themselves?
>Trying to redefine the word "evidence" to allow you to offer misguided
>arguments and badly founded assumptions is not going to actually get you
>any evidence. Let me repeat: There is no evidence for such a creator.
>None at all of any sort. The only way you claim to have evidence is to
>misuse the English language to the point of lying.
It's a standard stupid theist dishonesty after they have painted
themselves into a corner.
>All you have to do to prove me wrong is point to one piece of actual
>evidence for such a creator. I know you cannot, but I will be happy to
>respond to any attempt you make.
The problem is that theists are utterly certain their god is real so
there must be evidence even if they don't know what it is.
Willy Wanker didn't even realise he was begging the question when he
said "the creator" and is going down the time-worn path of trying to
insult and put down people who point this out, but just digs himself
deeper into a hole of his own making with every post.
They don't believe because of this hypothetical evidence. But they
claim there is some but can't produce any.
If they had even a room temperature IQ they would think before making
fools of themselves.
>>>>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>>>>consequences which may result.
>>>>
>>>>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>>>>from falling if I lose my balance.
>>>>
>>>>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>>>>religious position.
>>>
>>>And the facts are that no evidence supports the claim that such a
>>>creator exists.
>>
>>Again, not the same thing:
>>no *scientific* evidence supports the claim that such a creator
>>exists.
>
>No evidence at all.
Exactly.
Turning demands for ANY evidence into "scientific evidence" is
dishonesty so transparent it tells us plenty about them they would
rather have kept to themselves.
>>A claim that can't be tested scientifically is not invalidated by a
>>lack of *scientific* evidence.
Good thing we have been asking for ANY evidence that leads to it as a
conclusion.
Willy Wanker doesn't realise that he has just told us he has none
otherwise he wouldn't have needed such transparent dodging.
>>These are religious, not scientific, statements:
>>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>
>I have made neither statement.
Willy Wanker can't understand that people are just applying the same
reasoning to this unjustified and hypothetical creator that he and
other theists apply to the universe.
Nor that "the creator" rests on an unjustified and therefore invalid
presumption that only theists have,
That's what the definite article does - implies the specific one they
believe in.
>I have pointed out that there is no evidence. You are free to show me
>that I am mistaken by offering evidence, not by playing with words.
Given that so many theists use the same transparently dishonest dodges
they can't all have come up with themselves.
Any idea whip originated it?
wrote:
invent straw men to attack.
>>>Let's try the objective one: There is no evidence for such a creator.
>>
>>There is no *scientific* evidence for such a creator.
>>
>>Not the same thing.
>
>Really?
Any evidence.
If he has any other kind than scientific he should have provided it.
As long as it leads to this hypothetical creator as a conclusion.
But instead he invents a straw man about scientific evidence.
>>The distinction was explained well in a previous thread. One excerpt
>>from that thread:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/03621c475ffcff18?hl=en
>>You have CHOSEN for YOURSELF the requirements by which you will
>>believe something is true.
Evidence is evidence for something is whatever leads to it as a
conclusion.
>Ah, yes, the one where the excuses for believers not being able to find
>any evidence for any gods fly fast and loose.
>Trying to redefine the word "evidence" to allow you to offer misguided
>arguments and badly founded assumptions is not going to actually get you
>any evidence. Let me repeat: There is no evidence for such a creator.
>None at all of any sort. The only way you claim to have evidence is to
>misuse the English language to the point of lying.
themselves into a corner.
>All you have to do to prove me wrong is point to one piece of actual
>evidence for such a creator. I know you cannot, but I will be happy to
>respond to any attempt you make.
there must be evidence even if they don't know what it is.
Willy Wanker didn't even realise he was begging the question when he
said "the creator" and is going down the time-worn path of trying to
insult and put down people who point this out, but just digs himself
deeper into a hole of his own making with every post.
They don't believe because of this hypothetical evidence. But they
claim there is some but can't produce any.
If they had even a room temperature IQ they would think before making
fools of themselves.
>>>>One can choose to acknowledge whatever they wish; with whatever
>>>>consequences which may result.
>>>>
>>>>I can choose not to acknowledge the law of gravity. That won't stop me
>>>>from falling if I lose my balance.
>>>>
>>>>Stating something as a fact without scientific justification is a
>>>>religious position.
>>>
>>>And the facts are that no evidence supports the claim that such a
>>>creator exists.
>>
>>Again, not the same thing:
>>no *scientific* evidence supports the claim that such a creator
>>exists.
>
>No evidence at all.
Turning demands for ANY evidence into "scientific evidence" is
dishonesty so transparent it tells us plenty about them they would
rather have kept to themselves.
>>A claim that can't be tested scientifically is not invalidated by a
>>lack of *scientific* evidence.
conclusion.
Willy Wanker doesn't realise that he has just told us he has none
otherwise he wouldn't have needed such transparent dodging.
>>These are religious, not scientific, statements:
>>1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
>>2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.
>
>I have made neither statement.
reasoning to this unjustified and hypothetical creator that he and
other theists apply to the universe.
Nor that "the creator" rests on an unjustified and therefore invalid
presumption that only theists have,
That's what the definite article does - implies the specific one they
believe in.
>I have pointed out that there is no evidence. You are free to show me
>that I am mistaken by offering evidence, not by playing with words.
they can't all have come up with themselves.
Any idea whip originated it?
tj Frazir
Nov 27, 2011, 3:23:30 PM11/27/11
to
tj Frazir
Nov 27, 2011, 3:24:41 PM11/27/11
to
Tim McGaughy
Dec 12, 2011, 9:54:54 AM12/12/11
to
Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:16:13 -0800 (PST), thomas p wrote:
>
>> On 24 Nov., 19:57, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>>>>> TreBert
>>>>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>>>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>> >from somewhere
>>>
>>> You know this how?
>> creator.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
you believe the universe does?
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:16:13 -0800 (PST), thomas p wrote:
>
>> On 24 Nov., 19:57, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/2011 3:33 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:20:32 -0500, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/2011 5:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>>>>> Have to add this idea. "Did space compression create the big bang?
>>>>>>> TreBert
>>>>>> Nothing 'created' the big bang.
>>>>> Then "nothing" must be a god?
>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>> >from somewhere
>>>
>>> You know this how?
>>>
>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>> outside this universe?
>>>
>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>
>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>> outside this universe?
>>>
>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>
>> creator.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
> have had to come from somewhere."
If you don't believe a creator needs to come from somewhere, why would
you believe the universe does?
john
Dec 12, 2011, 11:09:31 AM12/12/11
to
Everything, everywhere.
Omnipresent.
Omniscient.
Omnipotent.
"Outside the universe' has no meaning.
How 'bout this- God IS the Universe?
john
HVAC
Dec 12, 2011, 11:29:28 AM12/12/11
to
On 12/12/2011 11:09 AM, john wrote:
>
>
> Everything, everywhere.
> Omnipresent.
So the universe is everywhere. I'm good with that.
> Omniscient.
So the universe knows what I'm thinking? Ummmmmm no.
> Omnipotent.
So the universe can do anything? No again. Sorry.
> "Outside the universe' has no meaning.
>
> How 'bout this- God IS the Universe?
How 'bout we just leave out the middle-man?
>
>
> Everything, everywhere.
> Omnipresent.
So the universe is everywhere. I'm good with that.
> Omniscient.
So the universe knows what I'm thinking? Ummmmmm no.
> Omnipotent.
So the universe can do anything? No again. Sorry.
> "Outside the universe' has no meaning.
>
> How 'bout this- God IS the Universe?
Y.Porat
Dec 12, 2011, 11:25:32 AM12/12/11
to
On Nov 26, 8:22 am, GravityPhys...@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote:
> Time is faster near mass
>
> http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
--------------------
so ??
it is not space that make
attraction !!
ALL ATTRACTION FORCES
ARE A NET PROPERTY OF** MASS**
NO CONNECTION TO CURVED SPACE
AND NOT TO SCHMERVED SPACE
GR is shear nonsense physics !!
othoa 9on the other hand
SR is right !!
one must be selective !!
'Hominum errata est''' !! (spe ??)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
> Time is faster near mass
>
> http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
--------------------
so ??
it is not space that make
attraction !!
ALL ATTRACTION FORCES
ARE A NET PROPERTY OF** MASS**
NO CONNECTION TO CURVED SPACE
AND NOT TO SCHMERVED SPACE
GR is shear nonsense physics !!
othoa 9on the other hand
SR is right !!
one must be selective !!
'Hominum errata est''' !! (spe ??)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
papa...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2011, 12:12:34 PM12/12/11
to
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
You should try it sometime Porat
Dakota
Dec 12, 2011, 3:05:01 PM12/12/11
to
Universe. Why would the Universe have omniscient and omnipotent
properties? It is merely matter and energy. It seems to follow rules not
make them.
Y.Porat
Dec 12, 2011, 1:52:01 PM12/12/11
to
>
> You should try it sometime Porat
-------------------------
> You should try it sometime Porat
little incurable parrot
Next !!
Y.P
------------------------
Paul David Wright
Dec 12, 2011, 6:12:07 PM12/12/11
to
Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote in
news:Q-ednQBsvv8iiHvT...@posted.toastnet:
> Path:
> news.albasani.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!
feeder3.
> cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!
postnews.
> google.com!v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Uncle Vic
> <vic...@inreach.com> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion,alt.religion.mormon,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism,alt.bi
b
> le.prophecy Subject: Re: Psalm 39: 5-9. 12-12-11.
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:58:53 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 34
> Message-ID:
> <ca3bd794-e42e-4a79...@v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
> References:
> <1eb6307f-a982-4338...@r16g2000prr.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.23.174.51
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1323720026 18415 127.0.0.1 (12 Dec 2011
> 20:00:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:00:26 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com;
> posting-host=75.23.174.51;
> posting-account=mm3IQQoAAADFd1l16U3KQmIzP4ICa-rE User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
> rv:8.0.1)
> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0.1,gzip(gfe)
> Xref: news.albasani.net alt.religion:264392 alt.religion.mormon:259164
> soc.culture.jewish:878791 alt.atheism:2261554
> alt.bible.prophecy:318803
>
> On Dec 12, 8:09=A0am, "vivapadre...@aol.com" <vivapadre...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> The Vanity Of Life.
>>
>> Lord, let me know my end, the number
>> of my days,
>> that I may learn how frail I am.
>> You have given my days a very short
>> span;
>> my life is as nothing before you.
>> Mere phantoms, we go our way;
>> mere vapor, our restless pursuits;
>> we heap up stores without knowing
>> for whom.
>> And now, Lord, what future do I have?
>> You are my only hope.
>> From all my sins deliver me;
>> let me not be the taunt of fools.
>
> So it's OK to pray to Gawd to know the date of the end of the world,
> even when *his word* clearly states that only "the father" will know
> this date, and it is not for you to know?
>
> Padre Pee Pee, you don't even know your own book. For if you did (and
> you were wise) you'd drop this whole Christianity thing because it
> makes no sense at all.
>
> ...Obiwan Kenobi,
>> You are my only hope.
>
> Heh... Jediism makes more sense.
>
I makes a hell of a lot more sense then the established ones.
PDW
news:Q-ednQBsvv8iiHvT...@posted.toastnet:
> Path:
> news.albasani.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!
feeder3.
> cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!
postnews.
> google.com!v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Uncle Vic
> <vic...@inreach.com> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion,alt.religion.mormon,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism,alt.bi
b
> le.prophecy Subject: Re: Psalm 39: 5-9. 12-12-11.
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:58:53 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 34
> Message-ID:
> <ca3bd794-e42e-4a79...@v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
> References:
> <1eb6307f-a982-4338...@r16g2000prr.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.23.174.51
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1323720026 18415 127.0.0.1 (12 Dec 2011
> 20:00:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:00:26 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com;
> posting-host=75.23.174.51;
> posting-account=mm3IQQoAAADFd1l16U3KQmIzP4ICa-rE User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
> rv:8.0.1)
> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0.1,gzip(gfe)
> Xref: news.albasani.net alt.religion:264392 alt.religion.mormon:259164
> soc.culture.jewish:878791 alt.atheism:2261554
> alt.bible.prophecy:318803
>
> On Dec 12, 8:09=A0am, "vivapadre...@aol.com" <vivapadre...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> The Vanity Of Life.
>>
>> Lord, let me know my end, the number
>> of my days,
>> that I may learn how frail I am.
>> You have given my days a very short
>> span;
>> my life is as nothing before you.
>> Mere phantoms, we go our way;
>> mere vapor, our restless pursuits;
>> we heap up stores without knowing
>> for whom.
>> And now, Lord, what future do I have?
>> You are my only hope.
>> From all my sins deliver me;
>> let me not be the taunt of fools.
>
> So it's OK to pray to Gawd to know the date of the end of the world,
> even when *his word* clearly states that only "the father" will know
> this date, and it is not for you to know?
>
> Padre Pee Pee, you don't even know your own book. For if you did (and
> you were wise) you'd drop this whole Christianity thing because it
> makes no sense at all.
>
> ...Obiwan Kenobi,
>> You are my only hope.
>
> Heh... Jediism makes more sense.
>
I makes a hell of a lot more sense then the established ones.
PDW
0 new messages