WHY GOD IS REAL

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

2:02- Again, 1.100th of a second. I think that's how it's written. Can anyone tell me for sure? I'm trying to say one onehundreth. Appreciate it

It's just ".100th". The "one" in "onehundreth" is already in there without an additional "1". It's actually improper to refer to "100" as just "a hundred" because it should actually be refered to as to as "one hundred". Similarly, "200" is "two hundred", "300" is "three hundred", and so on. I hope that makes any use of hundreths easier for you in the future.


The nose has spoken.


Edit:
It's something like that, at least. I just know that the "1" in front is unnecessary. Because, ".100" is actually the same as ".1" (which is one tenth) that actually couldn' be right.

After some furthor thinking, I realize I was merely confused by the decimal point. I'm pretty sure it's just "100th". My original answer didn't actually make that much sence.

MightyObserver wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

2:02- Again, 1.100th of a second. I think that's how it's written. Can anyone tell me for sure? I'm trying to say one onehundreth. Appreciate it

It's just ".100th". The "one" in "onehundreth" is already in there without an additional "1". It's actually improper to refer to "100" as just "a hundred" because it should actually be refered to as to as "one hundred". Similarly, "200" is "two hundred", "300" is "three hundred", and so on. I hope that makes any use of hundreths easier for you in the future.


The nose has spoken.


Edit:
It's something like that, at least. I just know that the "1" in front is unnecessary. Because, ".100" is actually the same as ".1" (which is one tenth) that actually couldn' be right.

After some furthor thinking, I realize I was merely confused by the decimal point. I'm pretty sure it's just "100th". My original answer didn't actually make that much sence.

True.

But I always hear it referred to as one, onehundrenth, since you can have eight onehundrenths, and such. Like for example eight tenths. 8/10ths.

I ought to write a reply to Alex, but right now I'm not in the physical conditions to do so...

Yesterday we had a discussion in MSN that literally ended up giving me a headache mainly because he failed to demonstrate with arguements why the universe couldn't have been eternal, again my quoting Hawkings out of context and limiting himself to say that "you'd need an infinite ammount of time which is impossible". This resulted in a horribly frustrating loop that eventually ended on him being unable to explain how quantuum mechanics and general relativity demonstrate that time is an infinite tunnel instead of a cycle. His usual haste because he's doing homework didn't help.

Alex, really, if you have homework to do, then don't engage in these discussions, they can take forever and haste won't let you understand properly your unterlocutor nor properly construct your arguements. And, if you don't have a broad understanding of quantuum mechanics, which I know you don't, don't try to explain to me through them why this or that theory is wrong. You simply can go as far as to quote quantuum physicists within context explaining the point you want to make.

For example, you talked about of time as an "infinite tunnel". How does time being an infinite tunnel (supposing that I'll take this for granted even amidst your unability explain why it's so-note:I'm not denying it, I want you to explain me why and how-) contadicts the possibility of it being cyclical if cycles are infinite and tunnels can be cyclical?

Else, we can just measure what we can somehow perceive. Our perception of time is entirely linked to the matter existant in space that we c an observe, interact with and therefore analyse, in other words, what we understand as "time" relies on matter and its behavior which mind me telling you we still don't fully understand.

I was talking about the bigbang-bigcrunch theory, or perhaps merely a variation of it, in which the universe expands and contracts infinitely, as if it was some sort of intermitent thing, I added that everything would repeati itself in a cyclic manner. How? Well in this way:

Since it's a cycle we simply have to choose a starting point from the unlimited ammount of points. Lets choose the big-bang for pragmatic reasons:

The big-bang implies the expansion of all matter all over the space leading to all events: the creation of earth, planets ateroids impacts, supernovas etc. Every event on Earth would be product of this matter displacing within a portion of the space. Volcanoes, the atmosphere, the moon and of coorse life would be product of aall this matter's displacement.

Then, there would be a moment, call it 3 decillion years after the big bang where everything starts compressing as opposed to expanding until all matter is chucked together once again just to bang! expand itself again and, as some theories go, repeat itself exactly in the same way indefinitely.

The universe would be a 3x10⁶⁰ years ever-repeating cycle.

The universe, as we know it would have not been eternal, for, as we know it, it's just the present configuration, the present disposition of matter, but its components, in permanent transformation, would have been eternal.

So, how can you demonstrate, specially with your arguement that "time is an infinite tunnel", that this is impossible?

Very important note: I'm denying nothing, I'm demanding an explanation.

On a side note Alex, and as Tyrong is pointing out, you are contradicting yourself. First you say god is eternal then you say he isn't. First you say you have evidence to prove god is real then you say you got evidence to prove its possible... define your goal Alex, please and establish your posture. Once you do, it will be much easier for points to be adressed.

And, once again, if you got too much homework to do and deem it a main priority responsability, then, do not come to argue. You can't argue properly during a haste and you cannot fulfill your task if you distract here so you end up doing neither of both. Come here when you really have time and can pay this the proper attention.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I ought to write a reply to Alex, but right now I'm not in the physical conditions to do so...

Yesterday we had a discussion in MSN that literally ended up giving me a headache mainly because he failed to demonstrate with arguements why the universe couldn't have been eternal, again my quoting Hawkings out of context and limiting himself to say that "you'd need an infinite ammount of time which is impossible". This resulted in a horribly frustrating loop that eventually ended on him being unable to explain how quantuum mechanics and general relativity demonstrate that time is an infinite tunnel instead of a cycle. His usual haste because he's doing homework didn't help.

Alex, really, if you have homework to do, then don't engage in these discussions, they can take forever and haste won't let you understand properly your unterlocutor nor properly construct your arguements. And, if you don't have a broad understanding of quantuum mechanics, which I know you don't, don't try to explain to me through them why this or that theory is wrong. You simply can go as far as to quote quantuum physicists within context explaining the point you want to make.

For example, you talked about of time as an "infinite tunnel". How does time being an infinite tunnel (supposing that I'll take this for granted even amidst your unability explain why it's so-note:I'm not denying it, I want you to explain me why and how-) contadicts the possibility of it being cyclical if cycles are infinite and tunnels can be cyclical?

Else, we can just measure what we can somehow perceive. Our perception of time is entirely linked to the matter existant in space that we c an observe, interact with and therefore analyse, in other words, what we understand as "time" relies on matter and its behavior which mind me telling you we still don't fully understand.

I was talking about the bigbang-bigcrunch theory, or perhaps merely a variation of it, in which the universe expands and contracts infinitely, as if it was some sort of intermitent thing, I added that everything would repeati itself in a cyclic manner. How? Well in this way:

Since it's a cycle we simply have to choose a starting point from the unlimited ammount of points. Lets choose the big-bang for pragmatic reasons:

The big-bang implies the expansion of all matter all over the space leading to all events: the creation of earth, planets ateroids impacts, supernovas etc. Every event on Earth would be product of this matter displacing within a portion of the space. Volcanoes, the atmosphere, the moon and of coorse life would be product of aall this matter's displacement.

Then, there would be a moment, call it 3 decillion years after the big bang where everything starts compressing as opposed to expanding until all matter is chucked together once again just to bang! expand itself again and, as some theories go, repeat itself exactly in the same way indefinitely.

The universe would be a 3x10⁶⁰ years ever-repeating cycle.

The universe, as we know it would have not been eternal, for, as we know it, it's just the present configuration, the present disposition of matter, but its components, in permanent transformation, would have been eternal.

So, how can you demonstrate, specially with your arguement that "time is an infinite tunnel", that this is impossible?

Very important note: I'm denying nothing, I'm demanding an explanation.

On a side note Alex, and as Tyrong is pointing out, you are contradicting yourself. First you say god is eternal then you say he isn't. First you say you have evidence to prove god is real then you say you got evidence to prove its possible... define your goal Alex, please and establish your posture. Once you do, it will be much easier for points to be adressed.

And, once again, if you got too much homework to do and deem it a main priority responsability, then, do not come to argue. You can't argue properly during a haste and you cannot fulfill your task if you distract here so you end up doing neither of both. Come here when you really have time and can pay this the proper attention.

Ok, I'll present my arguement when I have time. But let me just define somethings.
Time is not an infinite tunnel so to speak, but a tunnel with a beggining and then everlasting after that.

Of course, I can't prove God is real, as much as you can prove he's not. Technacally, I can't evn prove His existence. So, what do you think I'm trying to prove?

And god could be eternal, but the universe could not, because god lives outside the realm of time and space; he's self sustaining.Becasue if the universe was infinite, without a beegining, we couldn't have reached today because we would always be moving towards infinity... I'll justify later... and xontridict you alter, Zealot.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Ok, I'll present my arguement when I have time. But let me just define somethings.
Time is not an infinite tunnel so to speak, but a tunnel with a beggining and then everlasting after that.

Of course, I can't prove God is real, as much as you can prove he's not. Technacally, I can't evn prove His existence. So, what do you think I'm trying to prove?

And god could be eternal, but the universe could not, because god lives outside the realm of time and space; he's self sustaining.Becasue if the universe was infinite, without a beegining, we couldn't have reached today because we would always be moving towards infinity... I'll justify later... and xontridict you alter, Zealot.

You seem to be holding onto the concept of time. It is a name given to something that we attempt to measure. Just because, like Zeal and myself have said, and he's a believer, a deist, I think, we place the start point in a meaningless place. The present is always the present. We could have reached here, because stuff will happen, events will preced and suceed other events. We are at the present in this infinite universe.

And you still haven't answered me. Zealot asked too.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Ok, I'll present my arguement when I have time. But let me just define somethings.
Time is not an infinite tunnel so to speak, but a tunnel with a beggining and then everlasting after that.

Of course, I can't prove God is real, as much as you can prove he's not. Technacally, I can't evn prove His existence. So, what do you think I'm trying to prove?

And god could be eternal, but the universe could not, because god lives outside the realm of time and space; he's self sustaining.Becasue if the universe was infinite, without a beegining, we couldn't have reached today because we would always be moving towards infinity... I'll justify later... and xontridict you alter, Zealot.

You seem to be holding onto the concept of time. It is a name given to something that we attempt to measure. Just because, like Zeal and myself have said, and he's a believer, a deist, I think, we place the start point in a meaningless place. The present is always the present. We could have reached here, because stuff will happen, events will preced and suceed other events. We are at the present in this infinite universe.

And you still haven't answered me. Zealot asked too.

If the universe was infonite,w e wouldn't have reached today. Just commenting because I want to comment back but I have no time! I will explain!

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Ok, I'll present my arguement when I have time. But let me just define somethings.
Time is not an infinite tunnel so to speak, but a tunnel with a beggining and then everlasting after that.

Of course, I can't prove God is real, as much as you can prove he's not. Technacally, I can't evn prove His existence. So, what do you think I'm trying to prove?

And god could be eternal, but the universe could not, because god lives outside the realm of time and space; he's self sustaining.Becasue if the universe was infinite, without a beegining, we couldn't have reached today because we would always be moving towards infinity... I'll justify later... and xontridict you alter, Zealot.

You seem to be holding onto the concept of time. It is a name given to something that we attempt to measure. Just because, like Zeal and myself have said, and he's a believer, a deist, I think, we place the start point in a meaningless place. The present is always the present. We could have reached here, because stuff will happen, events will preced and suceed other events. We are at the present in this infinite universe.

And you still haven't answered me. Zealot asked too.

If the universe was infonite,w e wouldn't have reached today. Just commenting because I want to comment back but I have no time! I will explain!

You'd better, because your inability to grasp that time is moving from an infinite point in the past TO THE FUTURE is quite annoying.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Ok, I'll present my arguement when I have time. But let me just define somethings.
Time is not an infinite tunnel so to speak, but a tunnel with a beggining and then everlasting after that.

Of course, I can't prove God is real, as much as you can prove he's not. Technacally, I can't evn prove His existence. So, what do you think I'm trying to prove?

And god could be eternal, but the universe could not, because god lives outside the realm of time and space; he's self sustaining.Becasue if the universe was infinite, without a beegining, we couldn't have reached today because we would always be moving towards infinity... I'll justify later... and xontridict you alter, Zealot.

You seem to be holding onto the concept of time. It is a name given to something that we attempt to measure. Just because, like Zeal and myself have said, and he's a believer, a deist, I think, we place the start point in a meaningless place. The present is always the present. We could have reached here, because stuff will happen, events will preced and suceed other events. We are at the present in this infinite universe.

And you still haven't answered me. Zealot asked too.

If the universe was infonite,w e wouldn't have reached today. Just commenting because I want to comment back but I have no time! I will explain!

You'd better, because your inability to grasp that time is moving from an infinite point in the past TO THE FUTURE is quite annoying.

This is a copy and paste straight from the interent, and I hope you can understand it, its the most obvious one I could find in a short amount of time: The fact that the universe had a beginning is vitally important. Why exactly? Because it manifests a gaping hole in the naturalistic picture of reality: the inability to account for the origin of the universe itself. In the early 20th century, with the groundbreaking scientific advances of Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubbell, and others, physicists came to understand that the universe is expanding outward from a single point much like the expanding shrapnel of a detonated grenade.1 This overwhelming evidence led Einstein to acknowledge “the necessity for a beginning.”2 Riding the crest of big bang cosmology in the late 60’s, British astrophysicists Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Perrose discovered what is called the space-time theorem of general relativity. This theorem essentially proves that space and time sprang into existence along with matter and energy at the big bang.3 As Hawking stated, “time itself must have a beginning.”4, 5 Elsewhere Hawking points out, “Today, virtually everybody believes that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the big bang.”6

One does not have to be an Einstein or a Hawking or even have a thorough understanding of big bang cosmology to understand that the universe began. An honest look at the second law of thermodynamics, for example, proves that the universe is not eternal. The second law asserts that the universe is irreversibly running out of usable energy toward a state of equilibrium (or heat death) in a closed system. Yet if the universe, being a closed system, is eternal, then all usable energy would have already dissipated and equilibrium would have been reached, because it would have had an infinite amount of time to do just that. The necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the universe began. As scientist Fred Heeren puts it,

[W]e know that the universe cannot be eternal; it could not have been dissipating forever. If it had been eternally dissipating, it would have run down long ago…..Working backwards, [the second law of thermodynamics] clearly points to a beginning.7

The second law, used in combination with the principle of causality, makes this gaping hole in the naturalistic motif readily apparent. According to The principle of causality, every effect has a cause. In other words, everything that has a beginning necessarily has a beginner. To reject the principle of causality one must affirm that something could come from nothing (i.e., the existence of causeless effects, or beginner-less beginnings), which is a both a philosophical and scientific impossibility. Some naturalists, out of intractable commitment to atheism, have attempted to argue that something can indeed come from nothing, but to no avail. As Dr. Norman Geisler observes,

The idea that nothing can cause something is logically incoherent, since “nothing” has no power to do anything - it does not even exist. As the Latin axiom put it: Ex nihilo nihil fit: from nothing comes nothing.8

Renowned atheist David Hume echoes, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause.”9 The logical conclusion drawn from the second law and the principle of causality, therefore, is that the universe had a first cause or beginner that is, in and of itself, distinct from and beyond the universe. Yet this flies in the face of the foundational tenant of naturalism, asserted so dogmatically by Carl Sagan, that “THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE” (emphasis in original).10 The evidence clearly militates against the naturalistic evolutionary doctrine of sola natura (reality consists of nature and its processes alone).

At this juncture many die-hard naturalists assert that the beginning of the universe was caused by an antecedent natural state.11 However, as Stephen Hawking’s space-time theorem of general relativity proves, time, space, matter, and energy all sprang into existence simultaneously at the big bang. This precludes any naturalistic cause for the beginning of the universe, since prior to the big bang there was no nature to do any causing. The inescapable conclusion is that the beginning of the universe was caused by a timeless, immaterial, and immutable agent12 or as Dr. William Lane Craig puts it, “the uncaused First Cause must transcend both time and space and be the cause of their origination.”13

So it can't be eternal for those reasons, and there are more reasons. I'll discuss them alter.

Quote :

This is a copy and paste straight from the interent, and I hope you can understand it, its the most obvious one I could find in a short amount of time: The fact that the universe had a beginning is vitally important. Why exactly? Because it manifests a gaping hole in the naturalistic picture of reality: the inability to account for the origin of the universe itself. In the early 20th century, with the groundbreaking scientific advances of Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubbell, and others, physicists came to understand that the universe is expanding outward from a single point much like the expanding shrapnel of a detonated grenade.1 This overwhelming evidence led Einstein to acknowledge “the necessity for a beginning.”2 Riding the crest of big bang cosmology in the late 60’s, British astrophysicists Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Perrose discovered what is called the space-time theorem of general relativity. This theorem essentially proves that space and time sprang into existence along with matter and energy at the big bang.3 As Hawking stated, “time itself must have a beginning.”4, 5 Elsewhere Hawking points out, “Today, virtually everybody believes that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the big bang.”6

I'm really tired of explaining that time is our creation. Just read my other posts. I could even copy and past what I've already said. The universe expands and contracts and expands again. A collision of tw alrger objets. Just two possibilities. Now, I admit that I don't KNOW. But this doesn't mean a God did it. However, it DOES mean, I admit, a God COULD have done it. The DEIST God. It created the universe and then buggered the hell off. NOT yours. And your arguments are just wrong, I;ve already said why.

Quote :

One does not have to be an Einstein or a Hawking or even have a thorough understanding of big bang cosmology to understand that the universe began. An honest look at the second law of thermodynamics, for example, proves that the universe is not eternal. The second law asserts that the universe is irreversibly running out of usable energy toward a state of equilibrium (or heat death) in a closed system. Yet if the universe, being a closed system, is eternal, then all usable energy would have already dissipated and equilibrium would have been reached, because it would have had an infinite amount of time to do just that. The necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the universe began. As scientist Fred Heeren puts it,

And upon the cooling the universe would loose the energy to expand, thus contract. All the matter, which itself would still exist, would come together at incredible speeds to a finite point, which would cause a mass ammount of energy and heat, thus causing the universe to expand again, thus starting it over. We were lucky enough to evolve on a planet. Go us. It's NOT perfect. But it was enough for life to evolve. It's changed since then, and we're lucky life came about before that, too, because then that life would have died, and we wouldn't be. Lucky us, huh? Our star could have gone nova. We could have rammed a black hole. We STILL could. Lucky us we haven't.

Quote :

As scientist Fred Heeren puts it,

[W]e know that the universe cannot be eternal; it could not have been dissipating forever. If it had been eternally dissipating, it would have run down long ago…..Working backwards, [the second law of thermodynamics] clearly points to a beginning.7

Where's this quote from, and read above.

Quote :

The second law, used in combination with the principle of causality, makes this gaping hole in the naturalistic motif readily apparent. According to The principle of causality, every effect has a cause. In other words, everything that has a beginning necessarily has a beginner.

Explain God's begining.

Quote :

To reject the principle of causality one must affirm that something could come from nothing (i.e., the existence of causeless effects, or beginner-less beginnings), which is a both a philosophical and scientific impossibility.

Which is precicely what your bible claims you God did.

Quote :

Some naturalists, out of intractable commitment to atheism, have attempted to argue that something can indeed come from nothing, but to no avail. As Dr. Norman Geisler observes,

Intractable commitment? What site did you get this, exactly? A link, please.

Quote :

As Dr. Norman Geisler observes,

The idea that nothing can cause something is logically incoherent, since “nothing” has no power to do anything - it does not even exist. As the Latin axiom put it: Ex nihilo nihil fit: from nothing comes nothing.8

A massive singularity of unimaginable power is not nothing, last I checked. An invisible sky daddy, on the other hand.... Oh, and quote is from....

Quote :

Renowned atheist David Hume echoes, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause.”9

Damn right. Your point? Oh, was this a quote mine? Call me when you strike gold.

Quote :

The logical conclusion drawn from the second law and the principle of causality, therefore, is that the universe had a first cause or beginner that is, in and of itself, distinct from and beyond the universe.

Which I admit, is a fair argument for a deity. I admit, infinity is difficult to grasp when going backwards. We're not designed, and I use that term loosely, to grasp large numbers. However, difficulty to grasp is not evidence.

Quote :

. Yet this flies in the face of the foundational tenant of naturalism, asserted so dogmatically by Carl Sagan, that “THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE” (emphasis in original).10 The evidence clearly militates against the naturalistic evolutionary doctrine of sola natura (reality consists of nature and its processes alone).

No it doesn't, read anything I've already typed.

Quote :

At this juncture many die-hard naturalists assert that the beginning of the universe was caused by an antecedent natural state.11

Yep, and I just noticed the numbers. Is this wikipedia? No.... this is a creation version, isn't it?

Quote :

However, as Stephen Hawking’s space-time theorem of general relativity proves, time, space, matter, and energy all sprang into existence simultaneously at the big bang.

Said it before, (sigh) not saying it again.

Quote :

This precludes any naturalistic cause for the beginning of the universe, since prior to the big bang there was no nature to do any causing. The inescapable conclusion is that the beginning of the universe was caused by a timeless, immaterial, and immutable agent12 or as Dr. William Lane Craig puts it, “the uncaused First Cause must transcend both time and space and be the cause of their origination.”13

Yeah, this was a creationist website. Link, dude?

Quote :

So it can't be eternal for those reasons, and there are more reasons. I'll discuss them alter.

What the fuck ever. You still haven't even answered the questions that I asked, and all I'm doing is repeating myself. I'm just going to copy and paste from now on.

I was making a decent reply to Alex when my computer restarted and all I had written got lost... a damn pain in the ass...

Since Tyrong has already adressed Alex's post most probably I'll simply second his replies or add up to them.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I'm really tired of explaining that time is our creation.Just read my other posts. I could even copy and past what I've already said. The universe expands and contracts and expands again. A collision of tw alrger objets. Just two possibilities. Now, I admit that I don't KNOW.

Thanks. This is in part what I've tried to get across. When we get to the 2nd law of thermodynamics we'll see this from a more detailed perspective.

And Alex, Tyrong is not the onlyone who doesn't know. Nobody does for certain.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

But this doesn't mean a God did it. However, it DOES mean, I admit, a God COULD have done it. The DEIST God. It created the universe and then buggered the hell off. NOT yours. And your arguments are just wrong, I;ve already said why.

I got to second this at least partially, and I say partially because in our great ignorance about the universe the concept of "deist god" could be extended to things such as we could actually be some sort of experiment from a superadvanced civilization and they're simply observing how different artificial species develop. Hell, theorizing can go on and on!

Tyrong kojy wrote:

And upon the cooling the universe would loose the energy to expand, thus contract. All the matter, which itself would still exist, would come together at incredible speeds to a finite point, which would cause a mass ammount of energy and heat, thus causing the universe to expand again, thus starting it over. We were lucky enough to evolve on a planet. Go us. It's NOT perfect. But it was enough for life to evolve. It's changed since then, and we're lucky life came about before that, too, because then that life would have died, and we wouldn't be. Lucky us, huh? Our star could have gone nova. We could have rammed a black hole. We STILL could. Lucky us we haven't.

Thank you very much Tyrong.

As we have been able to observe, when matter cools down it compresses. The universe being a bunch of particles it could actually behave in the same manner, plus, we have black holes a phenomenon we're still far from thoroughly understanding but which we have seen attracts matter and energy to itself. Seems like actually things are already coming together.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

The second law, used in combination with the principle of causality, makes this gaping hole in the naturalistic motif readily apparent. According to The principle of causality, every effect has a cause. In other words, everything that has a beginning necessarily has a beginner.

Explain God's begining.

I should add up to this by saying that everything that has a begining doens't necesarily have a beginner, just a cause. This is a misuse of the principle of causality.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

To reject the principle of causality one must affirm that something could come from nothing (i.e., the existence of causeless effects, or beginner-less beginnings), which is a both a philosophical and scientific impossibility.

Which is precicely what your bible claims you God did.

And which is something none of us has been denying [the principle of causality].

What we're arguing is that "nothingness" may have never existed in the first place.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Which I admit, is a fair argument for a deity. I admit, infinity is difficult to grasp when going backwards. We're not designed, and I use that term loosely, to grasp large numbers. However, difficulty to grasp is not evidence.

Seconded.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

However, as Stephen Hawking’s space-time theorem of general relativity proves, time, space, matter, and energy all sprang into existence simultaneously at the big bang.

Said it before, (sigh) not saying it again.

Now that you insist Alex, may you please explain us how the theorem proves our point wrong? How, explain how.


You still keep recurring to quootations of scientists out of context and empty statements. Please answer the questions.

Quote :

I got to second this at least partially, and I say partially because in our great ignorance about the universe the concept of "deist god" could be extended to things such as we could actually be some sort of experiment from a superadvanced civilization and they're simply observing how different artificial species develop. Hell, theorizing can go on and on!

Have to note dude, since he misused it prior, that the proper term here should be hypothesis, not theory. Hypothesising.

These explain, for those who are still unsure as to what I mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=15 (Watch the Back To The Future scene. Turns out evolution isn't a theory. It's now a LAW.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Have to note dude, since he misused it prior, that the proper term here should be hypothesis, not theory. Hypothesising.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out, after writting all that long reply and having it totally erased I wasn't in the best condition to write...

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

These explain, for those who are still unsure as to what I mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=15 (Watch the Back To The Future scene. Turns out evolution isn't a theory. It's now a LAW.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc

I'll watch indeed.

Quote :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc

Damn, THAT'S the way to end that video. Hilarious.

Good videos

Quote :

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out, after writting all that long reply and having it totally erased I wasn't in the best condition to write...

Yeah, I hope I didn't come off a rude, condenscending or picky about that. Just, you know, since he used it incorrectly already and all.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yeah, I hope I didn't come off a rude, condenscending or picky about that. Just, you know, since he used it incorrectly already and all.

No, it was perfectly ok and important to keep the consistance of the debate.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I was making a decent reply to Alex when my computer restarted and all I had written got lost... a damn pain in the ass...

Since Tyrong has already adressed Alex's post most probably I'll simply second his replies or add up to them.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I'm really tired of explaining that time is our creation.Just read my other posts. I could even copy and past what I've already said. The universe expands and contracts and expands again. A collision of tw alrger objets. Just two possibilities. Now, I admit that I don't KNOW.

Thanks. This is in part what I've tried to get across. When we get to the 2nd law of thermodynamics we'll see this from a more detailed perspective.

And Alex, Tyrong is not the onlyone who doesn't know. Nobody does for certain.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

But this doesn't mean a God did it. However, it DOES mean, I admit, a God COULD have done it. The DEIST God. It created the universe and then buggered the hell off. NOT yours. And your arguments are just wrong, I;ve already said why.

I got to second this at least partially, and I say partially because in our great ignorance about the universe the concept of "deist god" could be extended to things such as we could actually be some sort of experiment from a superadvanced civilization and they're simply observing how different artificial species develop. Hell, theorizing can go on and on!

Tyrong kojy wrote:

And upon the cooling the universe would loose the energy to expand, thus contract. All the matter, which itself would still exist, would come together at incredible speeds to a finite point, which would cause a mass ammount of energy and heat, thus causing the universe to expand again, thus starting it over. We were lucky enough to evolve on a planet. Go us. It's NOT perfect. But it was enough for life to evolve. It's changed since then, and we're lucky life came about before that, too, because then that life would have died, and we wouldn't be. Lucky us, huh? Our star could have gone nova. We could have rammed a black hole. We STILL could. Lucky us we haven't.

Thank you very much Tyrong.

As we have been able to observe, when matter cools down it compresses. The universe being a bunch of particles it could actually behave in the same manner, plus, we have black holes a phenomenon we're still far from thoroughly understanding but which we have seen attracts matter and energy to itself. Seems like actually things are already coming together.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

The second law, used in combination with the principle of causality, makes this gaping hole in the naturalistic motif readily apparent. According to The principle of causality, every effect has a cause. In other words, everything that has a beginning necessarily has a beginner.

Explain God's begining.

I should add up to this by saying that everything that has a begining doens't necesarily have a beginner, just a cause. This is a misuse of the principle of causality.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

To reject the principle of causality one must affirm that something could come from nothing (i.e., the existence of causeless effects, or beginner-less beginnings), which is a both a philosophical and scientific impossibility.

Which is precicely what your bible claims you God did.

And which is something none of us has been denying [the principle of causality].

What we're arguing is that "nothingness" may have never existed in the first place.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Which I admit, is a fair argument for a deity. I admit, infinity is difficult to grasp when going backwards. We're not designed, and I use that term loosely, to grasp large numbers. However, difficulty to grasp is not evidence.

Seconded.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

However, as Stephen Hawking’s space-time theorem of general relativity proves, time, space, matter, and energy all sprang into existence simultaneously at the big bang.

Said it before, (sigh) not saying it again.

Now that you insist Alex, may you please explain us how the theorem proves our point wrong? How, explain how.


You still keep recurring to quootations of scientists out of context and empty statements. Please answer the questions.

What don't you get that I will respond when I HAVE TIME! I asid, stop posting because Iwill, when I have time, respond! But let me just psot something quickly: ANd please, don't respond until I'm ready, beacsue I'll be tempted to respond, so PLEASE don't. PLEASE! PLEASE! I BEG OF YOU!: And as for the big bang/big crunch? Well… evolutionists had invented the Oscillating Universe model (also known as the Big Bang/Big Crunch model, the Expansion/ Collapse model, etc.) to avoid any vestige of a beginning, or any hint of an ending . Dr. Gribbin suggested: “The best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the Universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely”

And why is that unlikely/impossible/debateable? Well, let’s take a look, shall we?

Does scientific evidence support the theory of an “oscillating” Universe? The success or failure of this theory depends, in part, on the amount of matter contained in the Universe, since there must be enough matter for gravity to “pull back” to cause the Big Crunch, and if the big crunch can’t happen, then how will the big bang repeat? This is one reason why cold dark matter is so important. Dr. Gribbin has said: “This, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems in cosmology today, the puzzle of the so-called missing mass” In discussing the Oscillating Universe model, astronomers speak of a “closed” or an “open” Universe. If the Universe is closed, theoretically the Big Crunch could occur, and an oscillating Universe becomes a viable possibility. If the Universe is open, the expansion of the Universe will continue and the Big Crunch will not occur, making an oscillating Universe impossible. Joseph Silk remarked: “The balance of evidence does point to an open model of the universe” ( So that means it seems that our universe is an open universe, contradicting your theory.) Gribbin commented: “The consensus among astronomers today is that the universe is open” ( Even more…)Jastrow observed: “Thus, the facts indicate that the universe will expand forever” ( seem like the universe doesn’t oscillate! And those are QOUTES IN CONTEXT!) Recent evidence seems to indicate that an oscillating Universe is a physical impossibility. Hmmm…… Well it is if the universe is open, and since it seems like it is…
Evolutionary cosmologist John Wheeler has drawn the following conclusion based on the scientific evidence: “With gravitational collapse we come to the end of time. Never out of the equations of general relativity has one been able to find the slightest argument for a ‘re-expansion’ of a ‘cyclic universe’ or anything other than an end” As Ross has admitted: “Attempts...to use oscillation to avoid a theistic beginning for the universe all fail”. No one yet has improved on Genesis 1— “In the beginning, God created....”

And as for Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity showing that time is in infinite tunnel… its another misinterpretation due to my haste. I mean by that that for Quantum Mechanics and General relativity to fit together( uniting the theory of the large with the theory of the small), you need time to be another dimension of many for string theory, the only way today, we can sort of connect general relativity and quantum mechanics. This is because time is a dimension, and with think of it like that because of Einstein, that’s why we often call time the fourth dimension. Special relativity shows that time behaves surprisingly like the three spatial dimensions. The Lorenz equations show this. Length contracts as speed increases. Time expands as speed increases. Einstein created the theory of general relativity, in which we showed that time was a dimension. It’s hard to explain, time, so the best way I can is through an infinite tunnel, with a beginning, the beginning of time.

And for God being eternal, let me explain: Christianity claims that God has always existed. Is this idea even possible? Does science address such issues?
Christianity answers the question of who created God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tells us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe:
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)
The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible.

AND PLEASE DON'T REPLY UNTIL I HAVE TIME!

I took quotes, exact qoutes, becasue I knew you guys would just take more stabs at my quoting out of context and other excuses.

Oh, I'll reply, but like this.

Just read any of my previous posts, and there's your rebuttal. Beats the shit out of repeating myself again.

Links? Anybody have any links? You say the quotes are in context. Are they really? Your word. Links? I don't want your word. I want to see the actual fucking transcript.

Oh, and way to quote the bible. So you think the Earth is 6000 years, A rib woman was convinced by a snake to eat a magical fruit, that the Earth was flooded and that two of EVERY animal was brought on one boat, and that the Dead(Red?) Sea was literally parted? I think we have our answer, Zeal, to my questions.

Know what? This is pathetic. And I'm, generous, so I'll yeild. Yep. I still don't believe, but fine. You prooved a God can exist. Yep. (Obviously I'm being sarcastic.)

Which God, though? Certinaly you prooved a God can exist (Sarcasm) so let's say Zeus. Okay? Now, I have to go sacrifice to Aphrodite. And by sacrifice, I mean get laid. I love the Roman Pantheon.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Oh, I'll reply, but like this.

Just read any of my previous posts, and there's your rebuttal.

Links? Anybody have any links? You say the quotes are in context. Are they really? Your word. Links? I don't want your word. I want to see the actual fucking transcript.

Oh, and way to quote the bible. So you think the Earth is 6000 years, A rib woman was convinced by a snake to eat a magical fruit, that the Earth was flooded and that two of EVERY animal was brought on one boat, and that the Dead(Red?) Sea was literally parted? I think we have our answer, Zeal.

YOur grown man, and even though I have clearly presented why an oscilliting system wouldn't work if the universe is an open system, you still disagree. And you don't get that much of the stuff is lamost written in moral, but not exactly. There is truth hiddne under thos words. BEcasue you are grown man, you already have the mindset that there is no god, no attempts would change it. Just explain, please, why what I said about an oscilitaing universe wouldn't work? Becasue you saw, that if it's an open sytem, the universe, which is what is thought, then an oscilating universe is a physical impossibility. NOW DON'T FREAKING RESPOND! PLEASE! PLEASE! OK, just for why its not impossible for oscilliation to work, when modern science points towards the fact the universe is open. BUT DON"T EXPECT ME TO REPSOND! BUSY!

First, you're right. There's a lot of truth hidden in the words of the holy books of Aphrodite. Yep. That's what you meant, right?

I'm not saying it can't work. If you bloody recall, both Zeal and I said the universe as we know it. Okay? Simple.

Oh, an I'm a grown man, so I'll never change my mind? Fine. You're a child, and still believe in Santa Claus. Sorry, I mean God. You still hold it.

I kow I said on MSN I wouldn't use your age, but you started it. No you didn't say my specific age, but you sounded like you were saying that as an adult my mind can not change. You're young. You'll believe anything.

The problem is not that my mind will not change. It's that you have done a pis poor job from the getgo.

Alex, your quotes are nothing but statements, not arguements or demonstrations on the workings of the evidence they're supposedly based on.

Also, if you don't have time, don't reply, you also tempt me (and probably Tyrong) to reply even though much of what you're quoting and saying was already rebutted by Tyrong and me, with arguements, not statements.

And you two don't fall in the hell of ad hominem. Age is fucking irrelevant. If an 11 year old child came to me with a perfectly solid and well constructed arguement I cannot refute I'd take it for good just as I'll give a damn if a 45 year old tells me a bunch ofbullshit of which bullshitness can be verified. Let's not go deeper with this and keep with the discussion.

Alex, don't reply if you don't have time. Tyrong and I have time so we reply and we'll wait for your so well constructed reply on why the theory we have mentioned is impossible.

So far you've been unable and your haste won't help. So be patient, build your arguements and come to give a decent debate instead of engaging in a loop.

Quote :

And you two don't fall in the hell of ad hominem. Age is fucking irrelevant. If an 11 year old child came to me with a perfectly solid and well constructed arguement I cannot refute I'd take it for good just as I'll give a damn if a 45 year old tells me a bunch ofbullshit of which bullshitness can be verified. Let's not go deeper with this and keep with the discussion.

I was actually just mocking him. An Ad hominem is that's your argument. I was just attacking him.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I was actually just mocking him. An Ad hominem is that's your argument. I was just attacking him.

Yup I noticed. He did use ad hominem against you though a circumstance of which repetition I'd like to avoid and for which I posted said reply. I apologize if I give any hint at accusing you of performing it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I was actually just mocking him. An Ad hominem is that's your argument. I was just attacking him.

Yup I noticed. He did use ad hominem against you though a circumstance of which repetition I'd like to avoid and for which I posted said reply. I apologize if I give any hint at accusing you of performing it.

No prob.

Oh, and Alex? For when you come back, here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCPbE8ymsEw

im goona put two philisophical things out there just to show some stuff

god is a being of which no greater being can be though off. god is all powerful. all powerful includes all virtous. all virtous is being vulnerable. if god is vulnerable, he is not invincible. since we can think of a being which is invinsible, we can think of a being greater than god. this disporves the first statement

also
god is all powerful.
either god can make a stone he cant lift, or he can
either way god is not all powerful

Wow. That's some MAJOR homework you got there, dude.