Christian Doctrine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2017, 06:39 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Finally figured out who Bzltyr reminds me of...



Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
04-01-2017, 06:54 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Hmmm, how to sum this up?

thinks hard....

Christian doctrine is crap.

That's all I got.

Anyone heard from GWG?

Oh yeah, the Australian cricket team sucks.

That's it.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
08-01-2017, 07:11 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 05:06 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  "Any universe that expands on average throughout its history must have a beginning where a causal agent outside space and time creates space time matter and energy.

space-time theorem of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin

I was just listening to the Sean Carroll vs WLC debate (again), and found that Carrol had a response to WLC mentioning the (who knows, maybe Blitzy is a fan of WLC) space-time theorem of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin.

So, here we go, for the record and all future discussions. If someone ever brings up this theorem again:

The space-time theorem of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin states that in many (not all) models of the universe the classic space time description/model breaks down in the past.

Your response:
Nice theorem, but it doesnt apply to our quantum universe. Tongue

The key word is "classic". We know our universe isnt ruled by classic (as in Newtonian) physics but by quantum physics. It doesnt work the "classic" way but it is "quantum".

In addition to that, Blitzy quoted the theorem incorrectly. I just d/l it and nowhere does it spek of a "causal agent" or "creation". It doesnt make any positive claim at all, but it claims (in the title) that
Quote:inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime

The only thing it says about what lies beyond that "boundary" (beginning of spacetime) is
Quote:What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event

When asked, Vilenkin himself said that:
Quote:If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.


Source

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
08-01-2017, 07:58 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(08-01-2017 07:11 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  In addition to that, Blitzy quoted the theorem incorrectly.

You mean a theist misrepresented a scientific claim in order to make his otherwise unsubstantiated bullshit sound more plausible? Say it ain't so!

or, in other words,....

Lying for Jesus is still lying
© RocketSurgeon76 All Rights Reserved

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like unfogged's post
10-01-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(01-01-2017 02:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-12-2016 10:17 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

Doesn't hep that Craig is a liar, and has admitted that his personal intuition trumps facts. I've seen his debates with Sam Harris, Richard Carrier, Sean Carrol, and Christopher Hitchens. The man is a ignorant buffoon swimming in the deep end of topics he knows little about, and even the ones he should be well versed in he cannot help but flail around like he's drowning.
What for, an example, did WLC lie about, other than just plain being wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 04:12 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(10-01-2017 07:53 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  What for, an example, did WLC lie about, other than just plain being wrong?

You have Google, right?

It is not our job to educate you.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 04:33 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(10-01-2017 07:53 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  
(01-01-2017 02:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Doesn't hep that Craig is a liar, and has admitted that his personal intuition trumps facts. I've seen his debates with Sam Harris, Richard Carrier, Sean Carrol, and Christopher Hitchens. The man is a ignorant buffoon swimming in the deep end of topics he knows little about, and even the ones he should be well versed in he cannot help but flail around like he's drowning.
What for, an example, did WLC lie about, other than just plain being wrong?
He is lying since the first time he was demonstrated by an opponent to be factually wrong, and then went on in the next debate and used the exact same arguments again.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
11-01-2017, 07:34 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(11-01-2017 04:33 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 07:53 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  What for, an example, did WLC lie about, other than just plain being wrong?
He is lying since the first time he was demonstrated by an opponent to be factually wrong, and then went on in the next debate and used the exact same arguments again.
Those rwo debates are?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2017 07:55 AM by Peter Slevon.)
RE: Christian Doctrine
(11-01-2017 04:12 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 07:53 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  What for, an example, did WLC lie about, other than just plain being wrong?

You have Google, right?

It is not our job to educate you.
There are the accusations and interpretations as such. But being intellectually dishonest on a subject or he getting some things very wrong, is not shown to be clear cut. Google links do not provid any explicit cases.

I disagree with him on infinite regress of causes.

I Googled: 'things william lane craig is known to lie about'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(11-01-2017 07:52 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 04:12 AM)Banjo Wrote:  You have Google, right?

It is not our job to educate you.
There are the accusations and interpretations as such. But being intellectually dishonest on a subject or he getting some things very wrong, is not shown to be clear cut. Google links do not provid any explicit cases.

I disagree with him on infinite regress of causes.

I Googled: 'things william lane craig is known to lie about'

Oh for fuck's sake... learn to Google. Try Googling "William Lane Craig reuses debunked argument" or something similar.

I recommend starting with RationalWiki. Here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

A whole page on his dishonest arguments:
https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/

A page about how he misrepresents atheism and smears us:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithh...apostates/

And another, detailing his dishonesty in refusing debates with false reasons after someone called him out on some of his lies (it's a saga, but this page will get you into the middle of it), and offered to debate WLC. It's from the blog above:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...craig.html

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: