Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
That's a bold statement Hello. Rumor has it Hawking does a mean Peter Frampton impersonation.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9D-kUEp03c?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9D-kUEp03c?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Sure Gayfly, anything your science and philosophy "gods" say, no matter how silly.
If it makes you feel better to believe you can prove something about the origin of the universe with a circular argument about a teapot, go for it.
If it makes you feel better to believe that everything spontaneously created itself out of nothing because Stephen Hawking said so, go for it.
If it makes you feel better to keep your head in your ass about the fact that there's a lot more than CO2 causing the warming cycles and they've been happening long before humans had any input, go for that too.
We know you're incapable of thinking for yourself, so keep up your moronic appeal to authority which is just more defective thought.
If it makes you feel better to believe you can prove something about the origin of the universe with a circular argument about a teapot, go for it.
If it makes you feel better to believe that everything spontaneously created itself out of nothing because Stephen Hawking said so, go for it.
If it makes you feel better to keep your head in your ass about the fact that there's a lot more than CO2 causing the warming cycles and they've been happening long before humans had any input, go for that too.
We know you're incapable of thinking for yourself, so keep up your moronic appeal to authority which is just more defective thought.
Try reading, I did not call Dawkins the pseudo intellectual.
I give you you tube video of dawkins and it is not out of context. Dawkins made sure of that he was very guarded in his answers.
I quote your own articles back to you. Not, because I take it out of context, but because I read the ice core studies a year or two ago when someone posted a link to them.
I know that any scientist telling the truth is going to say that they show warming precedes C02 accumulation.
The reason I can use their quotes, is because I am correct and you were dead ass wrong. That is the proper context.
Touche, you nailed me with peter frampton, the creator of auto tune with a guitar.....hahahahahaha 
I can still rip a mean biker like version of "I touch myself" by the divinals.... so dont count me out yet....
I guess the Hawking side has a ringer....
"Do you feel like i do" was one of the coolest guitar songs ever!!
I just recruited kanye west, he is my ringer now..... in the epic battle of autotune karaoke titans.
I can still rip a mean biker like version of "I touch myself" by the divinals.... so dont count me out yet....
I guess the Hawking side has a ringer....
"Do you feel like i do" was one of the coolest guitar songs ever!!
I just recruited kanye west, he is my ringer now..... in the epic battle of autotune karaoke titans.
Quote from Lucrum:
That's a bold statement Hello. Rumor has it Hawking does a mean Peter Frampton impersonation.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9D-kUEp03c?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9D-kUEp03c?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Angry ranting and name calling doesn't make you sound any the wiser.
I already said you don't have to accept or understand what any physicists say. But based on just a 4% incompleteness of scientific understanding about what the universe is made up of, you have by some "dark points" of conjecture decided there's a God!?
You would no doubt claim a Creator God is plausible wherever there is a - .001% or less - lack of knowledge in anything at all!
However....
So your argument IS - the laws of physics especially as they apply to gravity, allow the universe to begin from nothing - but the laws of physics are no more plausible than the existence of God.
The laws of physics are less plausible than an imaginary Galactic Goblin called God?
Are you serious?
As the laws of physics do allow the universe to begin from nothing, a Creator God is neither required or a necessity to create a universe. Now that IS quite plausible.
-----------
Seeing as you mentioned them again, teapots in general are of course practically and profoundly existing and doing so with the greatest of ease and simplicity , something which God does not achieve.
So which is more plausible. The existence of a Teapot or the existence of a God?
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
You clearly don't even understand which is your own argument, so how are you going to even comprehend what anyone says, let alone great academics like Russell or Hawking ?
OMG!!!!! Is Stu short for STUpid? Because once again you've proven you are. But this time you've lost all credibility.
"Based on just a 4% incompleteness" you say? Try again because current thinking is that 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. Which is central to my point that we're not even close to having a deep understanding of the nature and structure of the universe, let alone its origin. How in the world do you think you can intelligently debate this when you don't even know something as basic as that? You've lost all credibility.
Hawking once believed that the universe would collapse and time would reverse. He's since admitted he was wrong. That's a HUGE error... so much for the infallibility of Stephen Hawking and "the laws of physics." So if you want to buy into his latest speculation that everything spontaneously created itself from nothing just because he's your science "god" go for it.
"Based on just a 4% incompleteness" you say? Try again because current thinking is that 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. Which is central to my point that we're not even close to having a deep understanding of the nature and structure of the universe, let alone its origin. How in the world do you think you can intelligently debate this when you don't even know something as basic as that? You've lost all credibility.
Oh please... I'm not comparing the plausibility of "the laws of physics" with "an imaginary Galactic Goblin." YOU are.
Hawking once believed that the universe would collapse and time would reverse. He's since admitted he was wrong. That's a HUGE error... so much for the infallibility of Stephen Hawking and "the laws of physics." So if you want to buy into his latest speculation that everything spontaneously created itself from nothing just because he's your science "god" go for it.
Your logic is circular because you really don't KNOW that one is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other. Nor would they necessarily be "equally implausible" if they were because that ignores the content of the claims.
Ranting and childish name calling really doesn't help you sound like you have a clue.
"...current thinking is that 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy."
..so what's your problem? You said it.
I hope you realize for your own sake, that would leave 4% of the universe unaccounted for. Representing a 4% incompleteness of scientific understanding about what the universe is made up of.
Perhaps you should re-think who's losing credibility here.
I said, you are comparing the laws of physics with an imaginary Galactic Goblin called God.
It is certainly imaginary.
Those who make claims for It do present the image of an inconceivably large grotesque supernatural creature that makes trouble for human beings.
Galactic Goblin seems to cover that.
I already said , three times now, you don't have to accept or understand what any physicists say to understand what you are saying is implausible.
Nevertheless they start out as two unfalsifiable claims.
Bertrand Russell's analogy demonstrates how unfalsifiable claims made for a God have no more of a philosophical value than unfalsifiable claims made for a Teapot.
Just because you have an emotional and/or superstitious preference for one of them, doesn't help the claims for it become plausible.
However I did also point out that Teapots do profoundly demonstrate their actual existence. At least Teapots are falsifiable - however , God is not.
Instead of trying to sound clever through infantile name calling as a crude substitute for argument, why don't you deal with the substance of the claim you made, and its rather obviously absurd implication.
Your argument IS - the laws of physics are no more plausible than the existence of God.
Why not re-assess the plausibility of your claim by standing in front of a speeding truck contemplating how Issac Newton got it all wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
Clearly Stu does stand for STUpid, as you've shown yet again, because you can't even recognize your own STUpidity when it's spelled out for you.
You've made a total ass of yourself but you don't even realize it because you're so STUpid
The 96% is the part that we really have no clue about, you moron. Dark energy and dark matter are only hypothetical placeholder concepts that were conjured up in an attempt to explain discrepancies between measurements, observations and theory.
Which means, we're not even close to having a deep understanding of the nature and structure of the universe, let alone its origin. Get it now, STUpid?
And your total ignorance of all this means you're in no position to intelligently debate it. Understand that now, STUpid?
You've already shown you're not in a position to intelligently say what is or is not plausible because you're too STUpid.
Clearly Stu does stand for STUpid, as you've shown yet again, because you can't even recognize your own STUpidity when it's spelled out for you.
You've made a total ass of yourself but you don't even realize it because you're so STUpid
The 96% is the part that we really have no clue about, you moron. Dark energy and dark matter are only hypothetical placeholder concepts that were conjured up in an attempt to explain discrepancies between measurements, observations and theory.
Which means, we're not even close to having a deep understanding of the nature and structure of the universe, let alone its origin. Get it now, STUpid?
And your total ignorance of all this means you're in no position to intelligently debate it. Understand that now, STUpid?
Yup... that's what YOU said, not me.
You've already shown you're not in a position to intelligently say what is or is not plausible because you're too STUpid.
Wrong. You miss the point that Russell's teapot is not necessarily unfalsifiable unless it DOES exist. Which may have something to do with why his article was commissioned but not published.