You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #93: That old "primo genitor" garbage again. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
Eileen Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. That old "primo genitor" garbage again.
godzebe said:
*First, I feel compelled to point out that your overt hostility is unbecoming and unproductive. You sure have a big chip on your shoulder about something.
You might try for a rebate on that faulty psychoanalysis plugin on your computer.

I am not an angry girl
but it seems like I've got everyone fooled
every time I say something they find hard to hear
they chalk it up to my anger
and never to their own fear
Ani Difranco - Not A Pretty Girl

* Adding this "context" does not change the preposterous nature of your position. You have postulated the existence of a "singularity" (which is really nothing more than a rhetorical device) in order to avoid the conclusion that there was a Creator of the universe.
I have "postulated" nothing and the 'position' is not one I have made. I have presented the current thinking of quantum physicists with respect to the origins of the universe as we know it. If you feel yourself qualified to argue with the likes of Einstein and Hawking then have at it - but somehow you appear too easily influenced by superstition and "magic thinking" to take on that challenge. What really is preposteruos is the explanation you provide by use of petitio principii of a "creator".

Now perhaps you could explain how you derived the non sequitur of the magic "creator" that you drag from nowhere. Who is this magic creator? I'll bet it's her horniness the - IPU (pbuH) -. You might also explain why it is necessary for physicists and other scientists to conspire to explain what they actually can observe and demonstrate in such a way that the existence of imaginary Sky Fairies, IPUs, Spagetti Monsters, and similar theistic nonsense is "required to be" ignored and not actually ignored because it is nonsensical balderdash.
*Then you are forced to also hypothesize that this "singularity" came into existence at a particular time in the past.

The singularity did not "come into existence"! What I explained is that using our current time space continuum we can regress back to a time very shortly after the singularity. Anything prior to that is undefined. What part of "undefined" are you having problems with since you appear to be dragging up defined concepts from nowhere? (for example: obvious questions regarding the origin of the singularity and how it (containing billions of galaxies worth of highly complex matter and all the energy in the universe, as well as the "programming" to make itself expand into the universe as we know it) could possibly have come into existence all on its own without a cause,) Where did you drag that horse manure from and how could the things you define there be "undefined"? You appear to be twisting scientific concepts to fit them into your superstition.

In order to insulate yourself from the you assert that "before the singularity" came into existence, rules of physics, math and logic don't apply. QED

Once more - ANYYTHING beyond the singularity, if there is anything, is undefined - therefore we cannot know what "rules" or "laws" can be used beyond the singularity - Do you really believe you can divide by ?

*It's no figment. I am just referring to your own words. It is your premise that once upon a time, there was a "singularity," and that there was a time "before the singularity" as to which all rules of physics, math and logic "don't apply."

There is no concept of time before the singularity so your sentence is nonsense. Time as we know it ends at the singularity. Do you understand the meaning of "ends"?
*S1 - As I have noted in other threads, it is logically impossible for anything to create itself,
S2 - because until it is created, it is not there to do the creating.
S3 - Therefore, the universe could not have created itself,
S4 - and must have been caused to come into existence (created) by some force outside the universe.

S4 is not derived from S1-2-3. It is a speculative "fill in" created by you and those who ignore infinity. A first cause may give them warm fuzzies but it's meaningless - and unsupported.

Therefore when you say:
* So we know that (1) the universe was created; and (2) the creation was supernatural; and (3) the Creator was extremely, awe-inspiringly powerful.
we actually know that you are bullshitting because we know nothing of the kind and you certainly have not given us any reason or basis to even suspect what you claim is valid.

*I refer to this supernatural Creator of the Universe as "God."

You can refer to your mythical beast as whatever you want since it is obvious that you and similar cult members are the ones that created it.

I'll ignore the rest of your post which is a poor attempt at Sophistry in place of logic.
*I'll close by saying that anyone who is capable of so quickly offending and alienating TallahassieGrannie as you did fares poorly by the comparison. She is the type of poster that gets along with everyone. But I can see that's not your style.

No matter how benign the theist appears humoring them cedes some credibility to their incredible position. That incredible position and its mind addled adherents are the most destructive and evil force on our planet. I consider less than vigorous opposition to this evil to be the equivelant of silence.

Check out -beam me up scottie's- journal piece, or William Pitts - "I see four lights".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC