Silverhair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-30-05 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #53 |
| 83. I read that in last month's Scientific American. |
|
Now that one was really hard to wrap my brain around. I finally sort of gave up.
|
| -1. Existence (or: The Origin of the Universe) |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 06:30 AM |
#0 |
 -
Sounds like you scored some GOOD weed tonight. |
Freedomfried |
Nov-29-05 06:35 AM |
#1 |
  -
No, I am this way all of |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:46 AM |
#22 |
| -
solution B comes out of a singularity |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 06:44 AM |
#2 |
| -
bingo |
xchrom |
Nov-29-05 06:49 AM |
#4 |
| -
So where did the singularity, |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:00 AM |
#5 |
| -
A singularity is a singularity |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:04 AM |
#8 |
| -
Either a singularity is SOMETHING , or |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:09 AM |
#9 |
| -
Tell me what 'something' and 'nothing' are |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:10 AM |
#10 |
| -
Those are intuitively obvious, like what |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:20 AM |
#13 |
| -
I think that your thinking is tainted by your existence as a four- |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:26 AM |
#14 |
| -
Ok. I will |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:24 AM |
#19 |
| -
Where did a 14 billion year old event come from? |
papau |
Nov-29-05 12:01 PM |
#44 |
| -
Not all singularities are created equally |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 02:17 PM |
#51 |
| -
The universe came from a couple of oscillating brane that touch sometimes. |
Silverhair |
Nov-29-05 09:47 PM |
#73 |
| -
Mathematically, of course |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 05:09 AM |
#78 |
| -
In theory, one could make a universe in the laboratory. |
ozone_man |
Nov-30-05 08:48 PM |
#100 |
| -
No, you can't have a Universe unless you promise to take care of it ... |
Spinzonner |
Dec-01-05 10:08 AM |
#105 |
| -
From my perspective, this |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 06:09 AM |
#80 |
| -
OK since Wikipedia explains it better than I do |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 07:47 AM |
#15 |
| -
The Bottom Line |
Midwest_Doc |
Nov-29-05 06:47 AM |
#3 |
| -
Not clear that the idea 'popped into existence' make any sense |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:00 AM |
#6 |
| -
from a different standpoint |
ayeshahaqqiqa |
Nov-29-05 07:04 AM |
#7 |
| -
This is why I do not |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:16 AM |
#11 |
| -
that's fine |
ayeshahaqqiqa |
Nov-29-05 07:49 AM |
#16 |
| -
Thank you! nt. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:38 AM |
#20 |
| -
"challenged atheists to explain how the universe came about" - and the |
papau |
Nov-29-05 07:18 AM |
#12 |
| -
I am glad that you posted this. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:43 AM |
#21 |
| -
God is an existing thing is the first "error" - God is - at least in the |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:17 AM |
#25 |
| -
I am saying for you |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 09:24 AM |
#27 |
| -
was, is, and always shall be - "existing" is not the word I would choose |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:33 AM |
#30 |
| -
There are only two |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 11:09 AM |
#34 |
| -
Consistent ? God must not only be in the image of man, but must use |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:55 AM |
#41 |
| -
I have thought that I |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:10 PM |
#49 |
| -
You claim the answer in your question- that God did not exist and then did |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:53 PM |
#56 |
| -
So God exists. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:57 PM |
#58 |
| -
It is the nature of God to be, was, and always will be. The "how did |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:02 PM |
#60 |
| -
Ah. Not logical to the theist. And here is |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 03:09 PM |
#62 |
| -
Have a great evening - I agree we can rename God as "things" that |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:28 PM |
#65 |
| -
I am sorry that I was not clear in my |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 06:12 AM |
#81 |
| -
Exactly. |
Zebedeo |
Dec-16-05 06:23 PM |
#106 |
| -
Well, the first thing to realize is that "God did it" isn't an answer. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 07:51 AM |
#17 |
| -
you can say that "God dit it" as an answer |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 08:01 AM |
#18 |
| -
"theists say you cannot understand it, so "God did it" is not what this |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:28 AM |
#29 |
| -
very strange definition of logic |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 06:32 PM |
#69 |
| -
I fall back on our friends the Greeks and the discussion of what we can be |
papau |
Nov-29-05 10:15 PM |
#75 |
| -
Intelligent design ? |
tocqueville |
Nov-30-05 07:46 AM |
#86 |
| -
Aquinas's 5th "proof" is indeed "Intelligent design" - but I was using it |
papau |
Nov-30-05 12:01 PM |
#96 |
| -
cheers |
tocqueville |
Nov-30-05 06:55 PM |
#98 |
| -
"God did it" begs the question, |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 09:02 AM |
#23 |
| -
"Where did the singularity come from?" is a meaningless question. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 09:11 AM |
#24 |
| -
No, it is not a meaningless question; |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 09:26 AM |
#28 |
| -
It is a meaningless question |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 09:18 AM |
#90 |
| -
Singularity is 14 billion years old today- per science! - God is forever. |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:56 AM |
#42 |
| -
To reject the question of creation is indeed one of Hawking's responses. |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:20 AM |
#26 |
| -
Well yeah, because "God" isn't an answer. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 09:36 AM |
#31 |
| -
Human experience defines logic - and God is the logical answer - |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:45 AM |
#32 |
| -
"God" adds |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 11:11 AM |
#35 |
| -
True only if you see them as two separate issues! |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:48 AM |
#39 |
| -
Clarification |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 12:52 PM |
#46 |
| -
nope - the concept of God - the one that produces more questions, is |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:57 PM |
#57 |
| -
Alright, maybe *you* don't have more questions, |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 03:12 PM |
#64 |
| -
Science says the Universe started 14 billion years ago - and who am I to |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:30 PM |
#66 |
| -
Science is strong BECAUSE of disagreement. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 03:36 PM |
#67 |
| -
I need more emotion icons in my message - we of course agree on |
papau |
Nov-29-05 08:38 PM |
#70 |
| -
And that's why "God" isn't an explanation. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-05 07:27 AM |
#84 |
| -
:-) :-) :-) May we both be happy in our belief system! :-) :-) :-) |
papau |
Nov-30-05 08:50 AM |
#88 |
| -
And may you derive the pleasure you so desire |
trotsky |
Nov-30-05 09:34 AM |
#91 |
| -
Not meant to be insulting in any way-But Belief system is in my vocabulary |
papau |
Nov-30-05 09:52 AM |
#92 |
| -
It is the correct word in your belief system. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-05 10:08 AM |
#93 |
| -
true n/t |
papau |
Nov-30-05 10:37 AM |
#94 |
| -
You seem to dance right over the problem of time 6000 years versus |
heidler1 |
Dec-20-05 01:21 AM |
#109 |
| -
my 2 cents |
unpossibles |
Nov-29-05 10:18 AM |
#33 |
| -
I like your post. We agree a lot. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 11:12 AM |
#36 |
| -
thanks! |
unpossibles |
Nov-29-05 11:46 AM |
#38 |
| -
Existence Is |
Beetwasher |
Nov-29-05 11:33 AM |
#37 |
| -
Ok. I will try to get around |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:49 PM |
#54 |
| -
well, i will continue - or interject |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 11:51 AM |
#40 |
| -
"Logical is a cohearent, repeatable system" - and we are back to science? |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:59 AM |
#43 |
| -
"There can be no logic that does not follow the scientific method?" |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 12:06 PM |
#45 |
| -
but is logic limited to the rules in science? Science must follow logic - |
papau |
Nov-29-05 01:00 PM |
#47 |
| -
Logic has established rules of it's own |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 01:45 PM |
#48 |
| -
The mathematical rules of logic, and the verbal versions of the rules |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:35 PM |
#52 |
| -
I forgot to say I agree with your time is a biproduct of realty comment |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:07 PM |
#61 |
| -
Much as I hate to interrupt you and papau, |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:53 PM |
#55 |
| -
:-) - that works for me as a definition of atheist - indeed the talking |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:00 PM |
#59 |
| -
Agreed! |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 03:10 PM |
#63 |
| -
There was no "begining" |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-05 02:12 PM |
#50 |
| -
last years attempts to find "brane" evidence all failed - but I like the |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:40 PM |
#53 |
| -
I'm jumping back in |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 04:41 PM |
#68 |
| -
My friend at the U of MD tried to do QM using Whitehead - and |
papau |
Nov-29-05 08:51 PM |
#71 |
| -
Amazing, isn't it? |
Zebedeo |
Dec-16-05 07:45 PM |
#107 |
| -
I read that in last month's Scientific American. |
Silverhair |
Nov-30-05 07:23 AM |
#83 |
| -
A few thoughts. |
Darranar |
Nov-29-05 09:29 PM |
#72 |
| -
While I may not agree with everything |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 06:17 AM |
#82 |
| -
With all due respect |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 07:37 AM |
#85 |
| -
See post # 80 nt. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 08:26 AM |
#87 |
| -
Saw it |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 08:55 AM |
#89 |
| -
Many of these responses are making an error regarding "before". |
Silverhair |
Nov-29-05 10:00 PM |
#74 |
| -
Indeed - that God has no time dimension is a given. :-) |
papau |
Nov-29-05 10:16 PM |
#76 |
| -
Just because time is part of our physical universe |
Darranar |
Nov-29-05 10:21 PM |
#77 |
| -
You appear to be playing word games |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 05:15 AM |
#79 |
| -
No, I am not. |
Darranar |
Nov-30-05 01:52 PM |
#97 |
| -
Read post #60 and #90. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 11:14 AM |
#95 |
| -
Yes - you are the "only one" missing the logic of the singularity (but I |
papau |
Nov-30-05 08:45 PM |
#99 |
| -
Peace, papau. |
Strong Atheist |
Dec-01-05 06:09 AM |
#102 |
| -
The singularity argument and the God one are essentially different. |
Darranar |
Nov-30-05 09:51 PM |
#101 |
| -
Now THIS |
Strong Atheist |
Dec-01-05 06:11 AM |
#103 |
| -
Well said :-) But again "God came originated ex nihilo" is not the |
papau |
Dec-01-05 07:32 AM |
#104 |
| -
May I respectfully suggest |
Zebedeo |
Dec-16-05 08:01 PM |
#108 |
| -
Careful, now. |
trotsky |
Dec-20-05 07:40 AM |
#110 |
| -
You can't |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 12:13 PM |
#111 |
| -
I'm not asking you to prove that he did, |
trotsky |
Dec-20-05 12:40 PM |
#112 |
| -
True |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 12:47 PM |
#113 |
| -
Your view of the subject is rational to me. In spite of the fact that I |
heidler1 |
Dec-20-05 01:57 PM |
#114 |
| -
Ohhh, bloody heck, no! |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 02:17 PM |
#115 |
| -
Stuff pops in and out of existence all of the time. |
hunter |
Dec-20-05 02:19 PM |
#116 |
| -
My brain hurts! :-) |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 02:25 PM |
#117 |
| -
Long ago I read that atomic particles are possibly whole new worlds and |
heidler1 |
Dec-20-05 05:12 PM |
#118 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread