Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:

A universe from nothing is a universe from nothing stewie.

Whether it was created by a grand poo pah in the sky or just happened by pure chance in some fantastical unproven scientific THEORY.

Despite the multitudes who would like to think they know for a fact which it was, as far as I'm concerned NO ONE really knows.

If you've decided to put your faith and beliefs in an unproven scientific THEORY, that's certainly your prerogative.

Me, I'm willing to admit I nor anyone else really truly knows for sure.

A universe created by a grand poo pah is not a universe beginning from nothing crummie.

I made no claims about truly knowing , all I did was make a straightforward statement and you run for cover under the word THEORY.

The old strawman argument that everything is faith and belief because no one 'really truly knows' is pretty lame.
It rather obviously and pathetically fails in the face of all the knowledge and understanding derived through scientific study of the physical and natural world.

For you to hold such apathetic ideas about it all, is your prerogative.

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

This from the one who knows less about science than some children.

What's really bizarre is you "thinking" there's a scientific explanation for a universe from nothing. At most, it's a wild speculation. And probably wrong given how little scientists know. They don't even know what 95% of the universe consists of, let alone how it came into being.

You must live a truly pathetic existence being as STUpid as you are and also so desperate to believe there's no God.

...which shows how little you know.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

...which shows how little you know.

I do have to agree, or at least not disagree, with Stu regarding the "universe from nothing" possibility indicated by physics. I'm fairly sure that it is mathematics which arrives at that conclusion, and I'm similarly sure that physics is pretty much only mathematics at that level. Experimentation on these hypotheses takes years to catch up, ordinarily.

I have no problem with the "something from nothing" concept, maybe because quantum physics, entanglement, and relativity are so mind-blowing already. (Or maybe it was the LSD...)

At any rate, I still maintain that at some future time the very concepts of cause, effect, and "objects" will be redefined or subsumed into a greater understanding.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

A universe created by a grand poo pah is not a universe beginning from nothing...

What is it then?


Here's a theory:

Energy in the curve of space/time spontaneously erupted into an omnipotent god. This god got bored with all the nothingness and decided to create a universe from nothing. But he was lazy so rather than create the end product he merely created space dust. He watched this dust float around for billions of years until one day in the universe's game of dust billiards. The dust finally became arranged in such a way that a cell of life was born. Then over billions more years this cell through both pure chance and natural selection evolved into both plants and animals.

This covers god, a universe from nothing and evolution. Should make just about everyone happy.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

What is it then?


Here's a theory:

Energy in the curve of space/time spontaneously erupted into an omnipotent god. This god got bored with all the nothingness and decided to create a universe from nothing. But he was lazy so rather than create the end product he merely created space dust. He watched this dust float around for billions of years until one day in the universe's game of dust billiards. The dust finally became arranged in such a way that a cell of life was born. Then over billions more years this cell through both pure chance and natural selection evolved into both plants and animals.

This covers god, a universe from nothing and evolution. Should make just about everyone happy.

That's pretty damn good there, Lucrum! Appears to incorporate the big a-, mono-, and poly-theistic systems! Not to mention it preserves an authoritative source for morality. Well done. Whatcha gonna call it?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

... Well done. Whatcha gonna call it?

I didn't realize I had to, hmmmm.


How about the theoretical (but not just a theory) god from energy, universe from nothing, evolution of space dust, origins of everything (except that first bit of energy) hypothesis extraordinaire, postulate of nothingness, order from chaos, non-logical axiom, beginning of time law.

The extensive mathematics of which to follow at a later date.



Too long?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

I didn't realize I had to, hmmmm.


How about the theoretical (but not just a theory) god from energy, universe from nothing, evolution of space dust, origins of everything (except that first bit of energy) hypothesis extraordinaire, postulate of nothingness, order from chaos, non-logical axiom, beginning of time law.

The extensive mathematics of which to follow at a later date.



Too long?

Lol

 

[jem]

even though hawkings article - provided stu with his argument and hawking explained why so many in science understand the universe did not get here by chance if we have only one universe.

Even though hawkings explained those conclusions came about in part because of science advance modeling....

Stu says Hawkings info does not matter.

the truth is that nothing intellectual matters to stu.

Not science, not scientists, not dictionaries not historians, not academics.

Stu prefers his ignorance to nobel prize winners quotes.

 

[Trader666]

No, this whole thread shows how little YOU know.

Quote from STUpid:

...which shows how little you know.

 

[Trader666]

It's nothing more than a wild speculation... just like Hawking's wild speculation that the universe would collapse and time would reverse that he later retracted. He had mathematics to "support" that too.

Quote from Ricter:

I do have to agree, or at least not disagree, with Stu regarding the "universe from nothing" possibility indicated by physics. I'm fairly sure that it is mathematics which arrives at that conclusion, and I'm similarly sure that physics is pretty much only mathematics at that level.