[quote]ephrem wrote:
It doesn’t matter if i reached zero or not. Zero is just another number, and you can always add another number. Like pat you’re using semantics and logical dissonance to give creedence to your beliefs. >>>[/quote]It appears they’ll never learn, but I have higher hopes.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
You are a lousy recruiter of your beliefs. I have said over and over again I don’t know and will not believe in anything without proof. I give the big band people the benefit of the doubt because they are trying to make it something I can understand but all you or any other god believer has ever done to convince me of god is to confuse me, make a fool of me, and dazzle me with bullshit.
[/quote]
That would be true if I were trying to recruit anybody. I simply asked you to back up your beliefs. I to am a big fan of the big bang theory. Makes no difference because it’s still contingent on other things for it to be true.
I am not trying to make a fool of you, but if you make claims you cannot back up, then it’s your fault, not mine. I’ll call you out on them.
‘I don’t know’ is a strange thing to put your faith in…I’d suggest you get sure.
I promise I have never converted a single soul here. I think people should think about things and if you want in engage in religious debate, be prepared.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Really? Start counting at negative infinity at let us know when you get to zero.
Actual infinite…as in the universe is infinitely old, so if the world regresses infinitely…we would never actually be in the present. Let me explain more plainly.
If your aunt owns a flower shop, and she has to count all the flowers before she opens up the flower shop. Today she has 100 flowers in her shop and it takes her 1 second to count four flowers, so it takes her 25 seconds to open her flower shop. Tomorrow she will have a 1000 flowers to count. It will take her 4:10 to open the shop. Now, if she has a infinite number of flowers to count how long will it take her to open the flower shop.
That is difference between a possible infinite, as in the world will last infinitely, and an actual infinity, as in the world is infinitely old.[/quote]Pretty good Chris.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?[/quote]
Where did God come from? Why are you still assuming time is linear? Your views are based around proving there is a God instead of actually being open to possibilities.[/quote]
G-d always existed.[/quote]
Yet somehow, it’s impossible that the universe or an infinite string of universes has always existed.[/quote]
I suppose if you want to ignore 80 years or so of the hypothesis of the primeval atom. Or, the fact that an actual infinite is mathematically and logically impossible.[/quote]
Why are you assuming the atom is the smallest component of matter, and why are you ignoring energy?
And why are you saying an actual infinite is impossible, when you believe god is an actual infinite?
[/quote]
Do you know what the hypothesis of the primeval atom is?
Because an actual infinite is impossible, G-d is eternal (outside of time) and immaterial, so in what structure is G-d infinite?[/quote]
So you don’t believe god is infinite?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Show how one [infinity] is pertinent to the primeval atom.
Numbers are infinite chris, or you must mean something else by “an actual infinite”?[/quote]
Really? Start counting at negative infinity at let us know when you get to zero.
Actual infinite…as in the universe is infinitely old, so if the world regresses infinitely…we would never actually be in the present. Let me explain more plainly.
If your aunt owns a flower shop, and she has to count all the flowers before she opens up the flower shop. Today she has 100 flowers in her shop and it takes her 1 second to count four flowers, so it takes her 25 seconds to open her flower shop. Tomorrow she will have a 1000 flowers to count. It will take her 4:10 to open the shop. Now, if she has a infinite number of flowers to count how long will it take her to open the flower shop.
That is difference between a possible infinite, as in the world will last infinitely, and an actual infinity, as in the world is infinitely old.[/quote]
She would be counting her flowers forever, and would never get around to opening her shop.
And infinity does exist in math. For example, take a yardstick and divide it in half. Now divide that in half. And so on, and so on…for infinity.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?[/quote]
Where did God come from? Why are you still assuming time is linear? Your views are based around proving there is a God instead of actually being open to possibilities.[/quote]
G-d always existed.[/quote]
Yet somehow, it’s impossible that the universe, or an infinite string of universes has always existed.[/quote]
Present evidence, or a logical argument for this infinite existence and we can boogie…The known universe is finite.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?[/quote]
Where did God come from? Why are you still assuming time is linear? Your views are based around proving there is a God instead of actually being open to possibilities.[/quote]
G-d always existed.[/quote]
Yet somehow, it’s impossible that the universe or an infinite string of universes has always existed.[/quote]
I suppose if you want to ignore 80 years or so of the hypothesis of the primeval atom. Or, the fact that an actual infinite is mathematically and logically impossible.[/quote]
Why are you assuming the atom is the smallest component of matter, and why are you ignoring energy?
And why are you saying an actual infinite is impossible, when you believe god is an actual infinite?
[/quote]
I think what he meant is that mathematical solutions cannot be an infinite, because it’s not a solution, it’s a problem.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
It doesn’t matter if i reached zero or not. Zero is just another number, and you can always add another number. Like pat you’re using semantics and logical dissonance to give creedence to your beliefs.
[/quote]
Semantics? Oh that was weak e…Get some rest and then show me where I have ever used this supposed ‘logical dissonance’. If I were doing such things you’d have been able to prove me wrong, and you have never been able to do that. But if your geared up, I am ready…No dissonance or semantics necessary, just pure logic.
Even the great Dr. Krauss who ballsally proclaimed something from nothing, couldn’t prove it and admitted as much.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?[/quote]
Where did God come from? Why are you still assuming time is linear? Your views are based around proving there is a God instead of actually being open to possibilities.[/quote]
G-d always existed.[/quote]
Yet somehow, it’s impossible that the universe, or an infinite string of universes has always existed.[/quote]
Present evidence, or a logical argument for this infinite existence and we can boogie…The known universe is finite.[/quote]
Just to clarify, I was talking about infinite existence, not infinite quantity. It’s possible the basic components of the universe have always existed, whether in the current or in an infinite string of universes.
Rather than actually bring anything of worth, you mock me because I posted in a thread you did gasp OMG how would I ever be attracted to someone who spends his life in his mothers basement while . . . . never mind. You are literally too stupid to insult.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
After nearly 14,000 posts, can you [u]PROVE[/u] your stance with more than ‘It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be’?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.[/quote]The way it’s worshiped by people like you science IS a religion so stop trying to exalt it over the most high God who created both you and science,
[/quote]
We don’t pray on the altar of science and we know that it is fallible.
It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be.[/quote]
[/quote]
I know you have quite the hard on for me, but keep in mind:
- You’re not my type.
- Keep it to the one thread, instead of following me around like some lovesick puppy.[/quote]
I know this has been discussed before, yet please remind me where the scientific method came from?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Science is all about proof. It doesn’t insist it knows everything, is open to changing based on evidence, and can back up its current claims with reliable evidence.
How about religion?[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Rather than actually bring anything of worth, you mock me because I posted in a thread you did gasp OMG how would I ever be attracted to someone who spends his life in his mothers basement while . . . . never mind. You are literally too stupid to insult.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
After nearly 14,000 posts, can you [u]PROVE[/u] your stance with more than ‘It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be’?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.[/quote]The way it’s worshiped by people like you science IS a religion so stop trying to exalt it over the most high God who created both you and science,
[/quote]
We don’t pray on the altar of science and we know that it is fallible.
It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be.[/quote]
[/quote]
I know you have quite the hard on for me, but keep in mind:
- You’re not my type.
- Keep it to the one thread, instead of following me around like some lovesick puppy.[/quote]
[/quote]
And now you’re recycling insults to bump old threads or reply to posts that have already been moved past. Seriously dude, you are not my type. Let it go.
shrug I guess this needs to be repeated, again. YOU are literally too stupid to insult.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Rather than actually bring anything of worth, you mock me because I posted in a thread you did gasp OMG how would I ever be attracted to someone who spends his life in his mothers basement while . . . . never mind. You are literally too stupid to insult.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
After nearly 14,000 posts, can you [u]PROVE[/u] your stance with more than ‘It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be’?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.[/quote]The way it’s worshiped by people like you science IS a religion so stop trying to exalt it over the most high God who created both you and science,
[/quote]
We don’t pray on the altar of science and we know that it is fallible.
It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be.[/quote]
[/quote]
I know you have quite the hard on for me, but keep in mind:
- You’re not my type.
- Keep it to the one thread, instead of following me around like some lovesick puppy.[/quote]
[/quote]
And now you’re recycling insults to bump old threads or reply to posts that have already been moved past. Seriously dude, you are not my type. Let it go.[/quote]
Not too get dragged into it, but could we refrain from ad hominem “arguments”
[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Not too get dragged into it, but could we refrain from ad hominem “arguments”[/quote]
brah, you wanna go brah? let’s go brah
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:<<< I know this has been discussed before, yet please remind me where the scientific method came from? >>>[/quote]A positively brilliant question. You skipped a step I’ve been trying to lure somebody through forever, but they won’t set that hook. You may not like where the answer to your question ultimately leads. (I’ll be waitin here for ya =] )
I agree thought that nothing is accomplished by calling people stupid. I honestly think all the major contributers here are are pretty sharp. Some VERY sharp. They don’t have to be morons to disagree with me.
I welcome your input Trib :o ] My understanding, the church was the first to bring the ‘scientific method’ to the table. I am sure you will show me the truth, yet please forgive me if I do not devote my full attention right now. In fact I am headed to the store after I finish this reply ; )
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:<<< I know this has been discussed before, yet please remind me where the scientific method came from? >>>[/quote]A positively brilliant question. You skipped a step I’ve been trying to lure somebody through forever, but they won’t set that hook. You may not like where the answer to your question ultimately leads. (I’ll be waitin here for ya =] )
I agree thought that nothing is accomplished by calling people stupid. I honestly think all the major contributers here are are pretty sharp. Some VERY sharp. They don’t have to be morons to disagree with me.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I know this has been discussed before, yet please remind me where the scientific method came from?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Science is all about proof. It doesn’t insist it knows everything, is open to changing based on evidence, and can back up its current claims with reliable evidence.
How about religion?[/quote]
[/quote]
Trial and error. We learned that by controlling variables and observing outcomes, we could make reliable predictions that proved to be true.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I know this has been discussed before, yet please remind me where the scientific method came from?[quote]forlife wrote:
Science is all about proof. It doesn’t insist it knows everything, is open to changing based on evidence, and can back up its current claims with reliable evidence.
How about religion?[/quote]
[/quote]Trial and error. We learned that by controlling variables and observing outcomes, we could make reliable predictions that proved to be true.[/quote]And where did the definitions, the ontological content for trial, error, learn, control, variable, observation, reliable, prediction and truth come from again? How bout the definition for definition?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?[/quote]
Where did God come from? Why are you still assuming time is linear? Your views are based around proving there is a God instead of actually being open to possibilities.[/quote]
G-d always existed.[/quote]
Yet somehow, it’s impossible that the universe, or an infinite string of universes has always existed.[/quote]
Present evidence, or a logical argument for this infinite existence and we can boogie…The known universe is finite.[/quote]
Just to clarify, I was talking about infinite existence, not infinite quantity. It’s possible the basic components of the universe have always existed, whether in the current or in an infinite string of universes. [/quote]
It’s a possibility, not a fact.