Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2017, 07:25 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2017 07:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:03 PM)Eagle Wrote:  That's because people don't like that I am a Christian.

Another presumptuous judgmental lie. We have Christians on this forum.
We have no such emotions towards them.
You presumptuous self-talk is totally false and delusional. The proof of it is here on the forum. You JUDGED wrongly.
What we don't like is the hilariously juvenile level of your ignorant pathetic apologist nonsense about your cult, (as well as every OTHER subject you talk about).
You know NOTHING about science, or religion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2017, 07:27 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it is a false point, and a nonsensical question. Plugging in an unproven syllogism because you *want* (psychologically need) an explanation, for which there is none, at this point, is simply childish nonsense. The question is not a religious or philosophical one. It's a statement about the questioner's psychological state, and knowledge of precise language. He's too immature to accept the fact we don't know. He *needs* an answer ... like a 2 year old ... "but why mommy", "why mommy".

No one knows what conditions existed at the time of the Big Bang. He is no cosmologist. The BEST of them make no claims about what he says the Big Bang was.

"Creation of the universe" is a meaningless string of words.
"creation" is an act. Acts are PRECEDED be thought, intention and THEN action. Time did not exist until the universe existed. Thus speaking in a temporal mode, without time, is meaningless.
I understand your point, but maintain that the response is appropriate.

When someone says "creation of the universe" I generally parse that into "origin of the universe" (as do, I suspect, most people).
As generally defined, the "universe" -- which includes "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated", and the relationships between them ("laws of physics") can be traced back to a point of origin which is "the big bang". Or at least a point 10^-43 seconds immediately after the event.

As to what happened "before" the big bang, I agree that the question may in fact be meaningless, "before" being time-dependent, and "time" originating with the rest of the universe.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dr H's post
09-10-2017, 07:36 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 07:27 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 05:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it is a false point, and a nonsensical question. Plugging in an unproven syllogism because you *want* (psychologically need) an explanation, for which there is none, at this point, is simply childish nonsense. The question is not a religious or philosophical one. It's a statement about the questioner's psychological state, and knowledge of precise language. He's too immature to accept the fact we don't know. He *needs* an answer ... like a 2 year old ... "but why mommy", "why mommy".

No one knows what conditions existed at the time of the Big Bang. He is no cosmologist. The BEST of them make no claims about what he says the Big Bang was.

"Creation of the universe" is a meaningless string of words.
"creation" is an act. Acts are PRECEDED be thought, intention and THEN action. Time did not exist until the universe existed. Thus speaking in a temporal mode, without time, is meaningless.
I understand your point, but maintain that the response is appropriate.

When someone says "creation of the universe" I generally parse that into "origin of the universe" (as do, I suspect, most people).
As generally defined, the "universe" -- which includes "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated", and the relationships between them ("laws of physics") can be traced back to a point of origin which is "the big bang". Or at least a point 10^-43 seconds immediately after the event.

As to what happened "before" the big bang, I agree that the question may in fact be meaningless, "before" being time-dependent, and "time" originating with the rest of the universe.

Agree, but when religionists hear "creation" THEY think "an act of god".
A timeless being cannot "act" or it ends its infinite past and infinite future ... an "act" is a temporal (thus inappropriate) concept for the conditions (timelessness)
THEY assert. He also claimed the "laws" inside this universe are universal to what would have been external to it. He has no evidence of that. He says he has a science background, yet somehow never thought about these oxymorons ... I simply don't buy it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2017, 07:38 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:43 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Dr H Wrote:  The reality is that there is well over a century and a half of amassed evidence in support of evolution, including direct observation of evolution occurring in the laboratory.

This isn't evolution.

That you can say that indicates that you do not understand evolution, and are therefore completely unqualified to criticize it.

No worries: ignorance can be remedied, if you are so inclined.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dr H's post
09-10-2017, 07:38 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 06:15 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  LIAR.

WHY DOES YOUR TRUTH NEED LIES TO SUPPORT IT???




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-10-2017, 07:42 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
So...to summarize this thread for those of us that missed it..."The Eagle has landed"?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 07:46 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 07:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  So...to summarize this thread for those of us that missed it..."The Eagle has landed"?

Turkeys. He thought turkeys could fly...

WKRP

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm so old.....Weeping

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
09-10-2017, 07:54 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 07:46 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I'm so old.....Weeping

I knew the reference...Weeping

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post
09-10-2017, 08:06 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:51 PM)Eagle Wrote:  @dr H,

There are many definitions of evolution now, but here's the bulwark, that is, Darwinism,
I'd suggest that you start with the introductory text in my earlier post. Then, as to the evidence:

Greatest Show on Earth

Evidence of Evolution

The Evidence for Evolution

Why Evolution is True

Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA

Quote:Unless I'm mistaken, people are remaining strangely quiet on the fact that hard evidence (geology) disproves evolution

https://phys.org/news/2010-11-darwin-the...ical.html,

If it perhaps helps to get your attention, here is the title of the article, 'Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes'
Have you actually read the article you linked?

It doesn't "disprove evolution"; it proposes an alternative to the phyletic gradualism interpretation, similar in many respects to Stephen J. Gould's "punctuated equilibrium". Nor is it a new theory: it harkens back to the natural selection theory of Patrick Matthew, which preceded Darwin's theory be 20-some years, and which Darwin himself acknowledged as influential to his own theory of natural selection.

Far from "disproving evolution", it proposes yet another plausible scenario by which evolution works.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Dr H's post
09-10-2017, 08:09 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Is this guy still here?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: