Spinzonner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-30-05 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #87 |
|
and I took your above message as an indirect reference to it.
I'm no Carl Sagan but even if I was it takes a student to make a teacher effective. You were simply unwilling to give up the 'intuitive' notions you have about existance and space and time which are not consistent with the concepts of contemporary cosmology.
To understand scientific theories and truths, you have to be willing to at least suspend the adherence to the definitions and assumptions that are in definitional contradiction to them. That does not obligate you to beleive or otherwise accept them but you need to enter a new frame of reference to deal with them, not insist that yours is the correct and by implication the only one because it is 'intuitive'.
I don't think you will be able to understand the issues and alternate views of reality until you do because they will be entirely foreign and an obstruction to logical thinking about them. (Note I do not equate logic with truth, I merely require that you accept certain other postulates outside a more parochial frame of reference about the universe and reason consistently with them.)
|
| -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