GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-13-2012, 20:35   #26
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
Unless, of course you are suggesting that the singularity exists completely outside time and space, and then once again, you may as well say "God".
Actually, this is exactly what they are saying, the brane collision is what is postulated to have brought about spacetime as we know it.

Why prefer this over your god conjecture? Because they have actually worked out the mathematical model for how this would work and used it to make testable predictions about how the universe should appear today (again the polarization of microwave background radiation).

Have you developed a mathematical model for god that gives testable predictions? No? Then it is philosophy, not science (and not even particularly good philosophy at that).

Quote:
Rather, it is simply explaining a phenomena within a prexisting Universe. Now, I don't really have a problem with this concept. I fully believe and understand the Universe is expanding. That is not a point of contention.
Yet again, you make it clear that you didn't even make an attempt to read the paper (or even the abstract). This paper is hypothesizing what preceded the Big Bang and spacetime itself.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-13-2012 at 22:15..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 20:41   #27
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
To be fair however, I know atheists that can't believe what science tells us about things of this nature. Once you delve into quantum mechanics and m-theory, things are so counter intuitive the mind rebels and rejects as one's existence is defined by classical experience. Some folks simply can't wrap their brains around it.
The math on this presses my limits too. The discussion on the testable predictions I'm comfortable with though. Of course, I was in electronic intelligence in the Air Force and I've been a licensed amateur radio operator for 25 years so I'm quite familiar with how electromagnetic waves propagate and that helps.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 21:06   #28
Vic777
Senior Member
 
Vic777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,453
The Big Bang Theory is bull****.
__________________
"It's Tom Dwan's World, we just live in it"
Vic777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 21:10   #29
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harper View Post
How do you know it was 'nothing'? I mean what you may think of as nothing may actually be something. For instance, empty space is actually something. So my bet is no one is claiming something came from literally nothing.
They start with the claim that you are saying that something came from nothing. Then, when you show them the something that the previous thing came from, they immediately push the horizon back with "where did that come from, nothing?" This holds true even when you manage to push the horizon back before the advent of spacetime itself (as demonstrated here). And then, when you dare ask them where god came from, suddenly he should be readily accepted as eternal without question.

It is intellectual dishonesty in its purest form.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 21:36   #30
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic777 View Post
The Big Bang Theory is bull****.
This would be hysterical if it weren't such a tragic commentary on human ignorance.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 21:38   #31
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 21:41   #32
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 22:12   #33
Woofie
CLM Number 293
Disirregardless
 
Woofie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 9,875
Send a message via AIM to Woofie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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've already admitted the math in the paper is beyond my understanding. Maybe I'll be able to follow along when I get closer to graduating, but what you said made me think of two things.

!) I'm not trying to blow my own horn, but I am better educated in math than the majority of the population, and I often feel like I am the ignorant one when I sit down to study. It's just the truth; almost no one studies anything beyond college algebra, and most barely make it through that in one piece.

I don't even know how far behind the curve I am from I looking at that paper. I can recognize the knowledge gap when I see your average working joe who struggles to add fractions compared to where I am trying to learn diff eq. I imagine there is an even greater leap from where I am to being able to discover the math used in the paper.

2) I'm reminded of when Sir Bedevere was forced to teach the villagers how to determine if the witch weighed the same as a duck.
__________________
"Turns oit i had irrisputable proof i was out of the country" - youngdocglock

"I don't need to figure probabilities, and I don't need facts." - JBnTx

"Maybe they should drink like Woofie and come up with pure brilliance." - OXCOPS
Woofie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 23:13   #34
Harper
Senior Member
 
Harper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
They start with the claim that you are saying that something came from nothing. Then, when you show them the something that the previous thing came from, they immediately push the horizon back with "where did that come from, nothing?" This holds true even when you manage to push the horizon back before the advent of spacetime itself (as demonstrated here). And then, when you dare ask them where god came from, suddenly he should be readily accepted as eternal without question.

It is intellectual dishonesty in its purest form.
Yes and it's really weird to see it play out here. I mean you wonder how people can remain so ignorant sometimes and I'm starting to think it's done by great dedication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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.
And I think most people don't realize just how much more intelligent or well educated the people pushing the envelope are. The math involved in theoretical physics isn't something where someone could sit down with the average college educated person and explain the math. It takes years of learning higher level math and physics just to have the knowledge and skill base to begin to understand it let alone make advances.

We also live in an era where this high level math is new to us as a species. I wonder what we would be like biologically if we had calculus a million years ago. We're not really built to think like that. There are still tribes in the Amazon where the people have no concept of numbers.

http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html
Harper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 23:47   #35
MadMonkey
Spershul Furces
 
MadMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 2,753
Send a message via AIM to MadMonkey Send a message via Yahoo to MadMonkey
To answer the OP...

Well, the whole universe was in a hot, dense state, then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started








wait




The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids!),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

Hope this helps.
MadMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 02:15   #36
X-ray 4N6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London (ex SA)
Posts: 398
Quote:
So, do you have a mathematical model for any of these other options that gives us testable predictions?
No I don't.

I tend to go along the lines of what Harper posted: that there was not necessarily "nothing." My point is that once that door is open, you can specify what ever you want as having "been there all along." Whether it was God, whimsical space pixies or a wind-up universe factory with foundations made from jube-jubes.
That leads to the question of how the "thing" appeared, because in my limited human comprehension these "things" must come from somewhere or have a start point. If that isn't the case then the only thing that makes sense to me is that time is circular. In other words the past is in the past and also the future.
It may well be that we or some other aliens create the mischievous pixies who blow the whole lot up in some millenia to come, and so again it starts...
X-ray 4N6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 05:49   #37
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6 View Post
My point is that once that door is open, you can specify what ever you want as having "been there all along." Whether it was God, whimsical space pixies or a wind-up universe factory with foundations made from jube-jubes.
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.

God, whimsical universe factories and magic pixies are no longer equally valid options. They can't even be considered valid at all because the math does not reflect their existence. Theists can keep repeating this all they want, but it's just willful ignorance.

Their archaic myth system will be left behind by science.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-14-2012 at 05:51..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 06:15   #38
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMonkey View Post
Hope this helps.


Yes, that did help! Thanks!

__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 06:17   #39
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Yes, science has a theory as to what caused the Big Bang and the theory makes predictions that should be observable and testable still today. So, I don't want to hear theists claim that "scientists have no idea what came before the Big Bang" anymore. If you want to challenge the validity of the theory, here it is complete with all the supporting math. Break out your slide rule and microwave detector and have at it.

The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang - Justin Khoury (Princeton), Burt A. Ovrut (Univ of Pennsylvania), Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton), Neil Turok (Cambridge)
Dang it man, that prose is almost as impenetrable as whole sections of the Old Testament.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 06:39   #40
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,006
Take the recoil spring out of your gun. Squeeze it together. Let it pop out of your fingers.

Same concept.

Questions, comments? Go read a book.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 07:34   #41
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


The Wiki article to boil it down into a more digestible form (emphasis mine).

Ekpyrotic universe

Quote:
The ekpyrotic universe, or ekpyrotic scenario, is a cosmological model of the origin and shape of the universe. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis) meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire". The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe. The ekpyrotic model is a precursor to, and part of some cyclic models.

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity and superluminal expansion while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse. Observations that may distinguish between the ekpyrotic and inflationary models include polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation and frequency distribution of the gravitational wave spectrum.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-14-2012 at 07:41..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 08:23   #42
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6 View Post
Where did this "brane" come from?
That's the problem with both the religious and the scientific approach. Whether it is a deity, a brane, a cosmic soup, a wind-up universe generator or naughty pixies, the problem is the same: can't get something out of nothing.
The difference is, the scientific answer is "we don't know" but the religious answer is "we'll make something up."

"We don't know" isn't a problem, just something to work on.

"We'll make something up" is a problem, because it stops us from trying to find real answers.

Can't get something from nothing? Then something has to have always been...but everything had to start, what came before the start? Did that come from nothing? And on and on.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 10:37   #43
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Don't worry. There was no accusatory tone meant in my post. I may have towards King, but I only resort to that when confronted with willful ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty.

The equipment necessary to test it is far from common (a microwave observatory) so I don't know for sure if it has been yet or not. They've laid out a method to do so and published it, so if it has not been, it will be soon.

My point in posting this is to show that progress is continually being made and that it is unfair to simply point at an area of study that is still developing and say that since we don't yet know we never can know.

The god of the gaps is constantly being pushed back. In this case, "he" was right behind the Big Bang, but now we are unraveling that mystery and "he" is receding further. I take this pattern to indicate that "he" is not needed to explain anything at all. If only we are patient and keep struggling to learn then we can discover how just about everything came to be.
I get the whole Tower of Babel concept. I was just wondering if preparations were underway to test this theory.

And on a more practical matter, where will the $$$ come from.
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 10:54   #44
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
I get the whole Tower of Babel concept.
The inference being we are foolish to attempt to learn what only god should know? If that's not what you mean then please elaborate as that is kinda the usual takeaway from that particular myth.

Quote:
I was just wondering if preparations were underway to test this theory.

And on a more practical matter, where will the $$$ come from.
There is a reason why we launch observatories like Hubble and Chandra and Fermi into space. It's not just for the pretty pictures, it's to test stuff like this.

The Planck microwave observatory was launched in 2009 by the ESA (European Space Agency). It was built to test inflationary models of the universe (similar to this but different) and to better measure the Hubble constant. I don't know if it is properly equipped to test this particular theory or not.

Planck Observatory
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-14-2012 at 10:59..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 11:07   #45
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic777 View Post
The Big Bang Theory is bull****.
You're kidding right? Have you tested it?
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 11:19   #46
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
You're kidding right? Have you tested it?
The Planck Observatory did.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 11:23   #47
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
The inference being we are foolish to attempt to learn what only god should know? If that's not what you mean then please elaborate as that is kinda the usual takeaway from that particular myth.
It's not foolish to learn what only God should know.

First off I don't see why anyone would get the notion that only God should know it. At least i don't see it that way. He gave us the ability to reason, think, and hands in which to build things. We may very well have been led to discover such things.

What I do see as a sense of foolishness that many times stems from pride is the notion that attaining knowledge or power would "narrow the gap" as you put it between us and God. An attempt at that is a fools quest because it assumes that the main difference between us and God is either knowledge or power or both.
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 11:33   #48
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
It's not foolish to learn what only God should know.

First off I don't see why anyone would get the notion that only God should know it. At least i don't see it that way. He gave us the ability to reason, think, and hands in which to build things. We may very well have been led to discover such things.

What I do see as a sense of foolishness that many times stems from pride is the notion that attaining knowledge or power would "narrow the gap" as you put it between us and God. An attempt at that is a fools quest because it assumes that the main difference between us and God is either knowledge or power or both.
But it seems that all the things God has "led" us to discover point to there not really being a God. God has to continually take a step back once we realize that our world and cosmos work very naturally and very unsupernaturally. You can accept certain findings that we know to be factual at this point. But 500 years ago what we now know as fact would have been heresy and gotten someone burned at the stake. The gaps that God hides in are getting smaller and fewer and far between. Eventually there just isn't going to be anywhere left for him to hide except in ancient archaic scrolls and scribblings of unsophisticated bronze aged wizards.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 11:43   #49
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
First off I don't see why anyone would get the notion that only God should know it. At least i don't see it that way. He gave us the ability to reason, think, and hands in which to build things. We may very well have been led to discover such things.
Ok, good. I can accept this.

Quote:
What I do see as a sense of foolishness that many times stems from pride is the notion that attaining knowledge or power would "narrow the gap" as you put it between us and God. An attempt at that is a fools quest because it assumes that the main difference between us and God is either knowledge or power or both.
Meh, you kinda manipulated what I said there a bit. I don't see it as narrowing the gap between us and god as I don't believe there is a god at all. Thus, no gap to be narrowed between him and us.

What I said is that god is often used to explain what we don't yet know how to explain (ie "god of the gaps"), but this theory (and many others like it) keep expanding the envelope of human knowledge such that there is less and less undefined area in which to invoke god as an explanation.

Or, to say it differently, to narrow the gaps in knowledge such that there is no real reason to invoke god as explanation anymore. There isn't really a reason now as I'm perfectly ok with "I don't know" as an answer, but many people seem to need to have some sort of explanation (no matter how absurd) for what they don't yet know.

See, same words used, but a very different meaning.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-14-2012 at 11:43..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 16:02   #50
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
They start with the claim that you are saying that something came from nothing. Then, when you show them the something that the previous thing came from, they immediately push the horizon back with "where did that come from, nothing?" This holds true even when you manage to push the horizon back before the advent of spacetime itself (as demonstrated here). And then, when you dare ask them where god came from, suddenly he should be readily accepted as eternal without question.

It is intellectual dishonesty in its purest form.
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?
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:04.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,055
288 Members
767 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42