Search results

LOL.:D You wish.

"Physicists Prove God Existence" You'd think, if you thought at all, just the title alone would raise some serious alarm bells in the -what an obvious utter load of bollocks- department. I can see you have learned nothing. I've never said "random chance is what created the universe"...

Well fine. All you are demonstrating is - there are things , like the FSM and god for instance, that are worse than speculation. Things that don't have any science, math, laws of physics to support them. Why are you wrecking your own non-argument again? Occam's Razor doesn't work any...

Ok, so you're telling me you are not reasoning. You really didn't need bother. Still posting even though you said you "don't give a fuck". You could add attention disorder to the list of others you portray. You are saying string theory is an explanation. A scientific explanation. It is...

That's not reasoning at all. Of course it's not necessary to invoke god, where the universe can and will create itself .

As this falls into your definition of scientific speculation, you'll agree now will you, there is nothing wrong with it ."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why...

Susskind explains string theory. So you agree with / claim string theory too now? You say there is nothing wrong with scientific speculation. The reason you post the same vid a thousand times is ...because you were actually trying to say you agree with a theoretical physicist's explanation...

Here are a few ways to help you get a grip. You claimed Susskind/string theory/ "the reality of today's science" is pure speculation. Your authority according to you, is speculating. You've categorized as speculation what your authority says . You've invalidated your appeal to authority...

Pointing out fact and the flaming obvious that debunk Jem's ill-informed conclusions, does not require making declarative statements about the word GOD. How strange you should assume it does. Your mind is closed on that subject anyway , you've already said so. Having also said you don't...

One of the last straws to drown with is that of a closed mind which, as you have already pointed out, iis what you have. For someone who says they don't care, you sure keep chirping in a lot. It's very funny how you go find a definition and then what has to be unintentionally, write a...

Get back to "us". Signs of Dissociative identity disorder going on there. And flattering yourself won't change a thing. No offer has been made. Keep popping in though, you know, like you do. Because as you say, you don't give a f*k:p

1) When it boils down, insult is all you really have. 2) Is that a fact :p 3) They're not my facts. People are entitled to their own opinions not their own facts. 4) What "it" is my opinion? All I've done is countered some very silly assertions being made. You don't know what my...

I just wonder why someone who says they don't give a fuck, gives a fuck. It 's not just a matter of opinion. There are facts. Those are the things that people like Jem and you for that matter who only have opinion, try to dodge around.

Calling on the authority of science and scientists as legitimate experts who you then say are speculating, has the consequence that your authority is speculating about a "Tuner" too. Why do you keep posting links that destroy your own claims?

You link another authority!!!... Is it an authority which is speculating!? Ask a scientist about science and their statements need be backed up in the tools of their trade; fact, math, physics etc.. Ask a scientist about god/tuner things, and it can't and won't, (like other make believe...

You're still trying to have it both ways. You can't. If you say your authorities in science are speculating when they give "The Landscape of bubble universes or Multiverse explanation for the fine tunings", then they are also speculating should they give a Tuner (God) as explanation for the...

That's all well and good but you still really just don't see the fundamental contradiction in what you are trying to argue. You make an appeal to the authority of science and scientists. Then you call everything they say "pure speculation". Wrong...but ok. However, should they merely...

I share your suspicion jem. No one could be as crooked as the ideas you put forward, and still have the ability to operate a computer.:)

The statement... "it is not necessary to invoke God" is premised by a fact.... "Because there is a law such as gravity.." Unless or until you are prepared to come to terms with that straight forward statement, you are not going to be capable of getting to grips with what Hawking and Hartle...

but then.... there's always the other side of the coin... the violent dog, the homicidal god. http://www.examiner.com/article/labrador-shot-and-killed-after-attacking-toddler-maine http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120421/PC16/120429826&slId=1...