[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

declaring we should accept cause without effect.

I think you mean "accept effect without cause."

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

I think you mean "accept effect without cause."

You are correct. I wrote it bassackwards.

[X-ray 4N6]

That's just it, that is no longer a valid statement. The whole point of this thread is that there are now scientific theories that push past the very start of spacetime itself.

It was one thing when science couldn't even begin to describe what came before. Anyone's guess was equally valid, but that is no longer the case. Now we have well developed, sound and testable mathematical theories that fully explain the cause of the Big Bang and the beginning of spacetime.

Can you tell me what that is then, in simple terms that I can understand. How was there no matter and no time and then there was matter and time?

[Harper]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

The BBT really is. Layer upon layer of the more absurd is added to attempt to defend the undefendable. Okham's Razor becomes a butter knife. BBT gets challenged, then it is asserted that it is an infinitely dense singularity so dense that it exceeds time and space and always was. When that is shown to be absurd, a multiverse is suggested as infinite and we just inhabit one where this one contradiction is possible. When that is absurd, we are told branes did it. So, as far as I can tell there are three levels of nonsense to try to explain a singularity that somehow existed on its own accord. Again, declaring we should accept cause without effect.

You've got that backwards, the big bang would be the effect and the singularity the cause. We can certainly accept effect without cause. Your post isn't very coherent.

So, as far as I can tell there are three levels of nonsense to try to explain a singularity that somehow existed on its own accord.

They're trying to find how the singularity occurred but also stating it existed on its own accord? That makes no sense.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

The BBT really is. Layer upon layer of the more absurd is added to attempt to defend the undefendable. Okham's Razor becomes a butter knife. BBT gets challenged, then it is asserted that it is an infinitely dense singularity so dense that it exceeds time and space and always was. When that is shown to be absurd, a multiverse is suggested as infinite and we just inhabit one where this one contradiction is possible. When that is absurd, we are told branes did it. So, as far as I can tell there are three levels of nonsense to try to explain a singularity that somehow existed on its own accord. Again, declaring we should accept cause without effect.

Wow, you really have no idea what we are even talking about here. My apologies, this is just simply beyond your capabilities. If belief in an intelligent designer brings you comfort then please go in peace. This is not for you.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Harper

You've got that backwards, the big bang would be the effect and the singularity the cause. We can certainly accept effect without cause. Your post isn't very coherent.

If you read the post from Bert, my faux pas has already been noted. Sometimes, that happens when I am multitasking. For instance, I have music playing, am simultaneously writing a sermon and talking to my wife and children. Sometimes it taxes the mental CPU.

They're trying to find how the singularity occurred but also stating it existed on its own accord? That makes no sense.

That is precisely my point.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Wow, you really have no idea what we are even talking about here. My apoligies, this is just simply beyond your capabilities. If belief in an intelligenter designer brings you comfort then please go in peace. This is not for you.

Thank you. I think that is one of the kindest things you have said in this type of a format. Here, and you thought that old spark of Christian love had been extringuished. And no, I am not being sarcastic, in the event you are wondering.

From my end of the metaphysical pond, I say God Bless you, sir.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

From my end of the metaphysical pond, I say God Bless you, sir.

Just to be certain, there was no sarcasm on my part either. I fully understand that the path I walk is not for everyone. Be well.

[Green_Manelishi]

Originally Posted by Geko45

... Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observable consequences for the universe today. ...

Here's a prediction: "science" will sooner than later pull another theory out of their atheist arses when this latest "we don't need no stinking God" intellectual cramp is found to be lacking.

"Branes"? Cripes, that's almost as funny as the dingbat Dick Dawkins claim a marble statue could, under the right circumstances, wave its hands.

From where did the branes arise?

[Green_Manelishi]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Just to be certain, there was no sarcasm on my part either. I fully understand that the path I walk is not for everyone. Be well.

You have plenty of company on that wide path.

[Geko45]

And the brief moment of mutual respect passes and we find ourselves right back in the mud.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

The BBT really is. Layer upon layer of the more absurd is added to attempt to defend the undefendable. Okham's Razor becomes a butter knife. BBT gets challenged, then it is asserted that it is an infinitely dense singularity so dense that it exceeds time and space and always was. When that is shown to be absurd, a multiverse is suggested as infinite and we just inhabit one where this one contradiction is possible. When that is absurd, we are told branes did it. So, as far as I can tell there are three levels of nonsense to try to explain a singularity that somehow existed on its own accord. Again, declaring we should accept cause without effect.

Yes, BBT is inetellectual dishonesty in a desperate attempt to defend the undefensible to try to eliminate the concept of an Intelligent Designer.

I wonder what layer four will be?

Creationism.

Randy

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

I think you mean "accept effect without cause."

Getting this stuff completely backwards is kind of his forte.

Randy

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

The BBT really is. Layer upon layer of the more absurd is added to attempt to defend the undefendable. Okham's Razor becomes a butter knife. BBT gets challenged, then it is asserted that it is an infinitely dense singularity so dense that it exceeds time and space and always was. When that is shown to be absurd, a multiverse is suggested as infinite and we just inhabit one where this one contradiction is possible. When that is absurd, we are told branes did it. So, as far as I can tell there are three levels of nonsense to try to explain a singularity that somehow existed on its own accord. Again, declaring we should accept cause without effect.

Your inability to understand it or refusal to acknowledge it makes it no less accurate. What "Caused" God?

Yes, BBT is inetellectual dishonesty in a desperate attempt to defend the undefensible to try to eliminate the concept of an Intelligent Designer.

Who designed the designer?

I wonder what layer four will be?

Were it left up to the uneducated... it'd be God.

[4Rules]

You'll just have to watch the movie.

THE BIG BANG trailer -- starring Antonio Banderas - YouTube

THE BIG BANG trailer -- starring Antonio Banderas - YouTube

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I wonder if there has ever been a time where the chasm between the most knowledgeable and the most ignorant has been so vast? Here we are with the best and brightest of us pushing the envelope of knowledge past even the very start of reality as we know it while simultaneously many of us still wallow in the desperate ignorance of an archaic goat herder's religion.

I was reading this at work today.

It is an awesome time to be alive.

As one who has just freed himself from the "goat herder's religion", just wanted to say I am enjoying your input here.

+1

.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi

You have plenty of company on that wide path.

And because I know exactly which "wide path" you speak of as a former christian, what percentage of the population do you think looks to relativistic elementary particle physics for its explanation of the origins of the universe? How does that contrast against the nearly 2 billion people that ascribe to creationism?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by NMG26

As one who has just freed himself from the "goat herder's religion", just wanted to say I am enjoying your input here.

You're welcome. It wasn't that long ago for me either. If you find yourself needing someone to talk to then just drop me a pm.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by NMG26

I was reading this at work today.

It is an awesome time to be alive.

As one who has just freed himself from the "goat herder's religion", just wanted to say I am enjoying your input here.

+1

.

Agreed. Not being a scientist I find his input most helpful.

[greentriple]

Too many beans mixed with broccoli. God is Mexican, we are his chosen people. Don't hate, we have room for you too.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Green_Manelishi]

Originally Posted by Geko45

And the brief moment of mutual respect passes and we find ourselves right back in the mud.

Now you are being intellectually dishonest. Your previous input reveals the utter lack of respect you have for any of the adherents to the "goat herder religion". You are also proving your complete ignorance; Christ was not a goat herder.

Isn't the mud from where you sprang "just because"? At least I had the breath of spirit and life breathed into me. Regardless, we shall both return to dust. I will be living large and you will be weeping and gnashing your teeth.

[Green_Manelishi]

Originally Posted by Geko45

And because I know exactly which "wide path" you speak of as a former christian, what percentage of the population do you think looks to relativistic elementary particle physics for its explanation of the origins of the universe? How does that contrast against the nearly 2 billion people that ascribe to creationism?

I have no idea "what percentage" but any more than 0% is a shame.

Did you ever stop to consider that all this "evidence" of "elementary particle physics" which you believe explains origins is simply the remnants of God's creative work?

It's tragic you have exchanged the truth of the Creator for the lie of a creation.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by greentriple

Too many beans mixed with broccoli. God is Mexican, we are his chosen people. Don't hate, we have room for you too.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

That would make your god just a little over 500 years old then. Meztizos didn't exist until the Ibirian Spaniards interbred with the local native population.

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi

Here's a prediction: "science" will sooner than later pull another theory out of their atheist arses when this latest "we don't need no stinking God" intellectual cramp is found to be lacking.

"Branes"? Cripes, that's almost as funny as the dingbat Dick Dawkins claim a marble statue could, under the right circumstances, wave its hands.

From where did the branes arise?

Here is another prediction: A religious hater of this world, will strap a bomb on his own body, made by another religious hater of this world . He will walk into a crowded market with a mix of fear, hate, and faith, and he/she will hit the button.

The most dangerous part of a faith that believes the future is more important then the present, is this mentality that is built on some kind of future heaven.

At the least, science is working with this world instead of against it. Have faith, but don't hate the world you have been given. It is all you have.



.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi

You are also proving your complete ignorance; Christ was not a goat herder.

I was a believer for most of my adult life and studied the bible at a christian university. Ok, for completeness sake, it's a religion of a carpenter, some herders, some fishermen, at least one aristocrat and some nobility too. Better?

What was your point? Did you think this wasn't common knowledge?

I will be living large and you will be weeping and gnashing your teeth.

You seem to relish this idea. Not very christian of you.