LOL. From nothing to full blown universe because ... invisible imaginary designer.
You choose the latter. I understand why you feel silly debating it.
My guess is you wouldn't love to read it at all. Otherwise you already would've.
Six biblical truths about money...
- Thread starter expiated
- Start date
You choose the latter. I understand why you feel silly debating it.
My guess is you wouldn't love to read it at all. Otherwise you already would've.
Again, my point is not that God can be proven mathematically. My point was, and is, that faith is require for both beliefs: Creationism and the big BANG! beliefs.
You insist on believing that your big BANG! is rooted in mathematics and is superior to all others. It's not. It's a guess.
For the curious. Meyer properly indicates that science doesn't (and won't ever be able to, imo) explain the origins of matter/energy. Math and science can describe them ... once they exist:
“Spontaneous Creation”: Meyer on Stephen Hawking’s Category Error
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/spontaneous-creation-meyer-on-stephen-hawkings-category-error/
"
We’re now more than a week beyond the passing of Stephen Hawking, and so we are feeling freer to do other than engage in eulogies. We asked Discovery Institute philosopher of science Stephen Meyer for his view on Hawking’s notions about the universe’s self-creation.
In his book The Grand Design, as you know, Hawking argues that “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 the universe exists, why we exist.” Thus, for Hawking, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Meyer points out, though, that Hawking’s statement betrays a kind of category error — a philosophical misunderstanding of what the laws of nature do. Meyer notes that “the laws of nature describe how matter and energy in different states or configurations interact with other material entities. They do not tell us where matter and energy (or space and time) came from in the first place.” He goes on:
Hawking earlier seemed to realize this. He asked poignantly in A Brief History of Time, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” But in The Grand Designhe slipped back into reifying our mathematical descriptions of nature — treating the mathematical descriptions in our own minds as if they existed as real things in nature, things that could, moreover, cause other entities they describe to originate in the first place.
“The laws of nature,” says Meyer, “describe how stuff behaves once it exists. They do not explain where that stuff came from.”"
@GRULSTMRNN has got to be the most anti-semitic, bigoted, hate filled person I've actually engaged in a full conversation with, which is saying a lot having lived all over the South and Hawaii. So I guess he's got the projection thing on both hate and "casting judgement via generalization" thing down for sure, beyond that I guess he's working on his trolling skills now?
But yeah @userque, upvote and agree away, he's your kind of guy isn't he?
What is your answer then? You are working so very very hard to avoid providing it that it must be starting to hurt badly! You started this conversation by saying:Again, I'll respond a third time. You're question assumes facts not in evidence. It assumes that there are only two answers to your question.
Your assumptions are incorrect.
You've relegated your question to only receive two possible answers; an either this, or that question. My answer is neither this, nor that.
It's like me asking you: "are you drunk, or high?"
When I pointed out how inconsistent your stated fundamentalist belief was with rational thought processes you started frantically tap dancing around until now you're denying that you said that, but apparently unwilling, unable, or both, to say what you really believe. If the bible isn't an infallible document that we must believe without question and apparently you reject the scientific method as well ("My answer is neither this, nor that.") what crazy voodoo mix of "logic" do you believe in?
Let me ask you a simple yes or no question, just to distill this down for you, along the lines of "Are you drunk or not". Do you believe the bible is the infallible truth and can't be wrong? Are you capable of answer that simple question?
Last edited:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-theory-and-law.309324/
Of course as other posters have pointed out we know reading comprehension has never been your strong point, so these links are really for anyone else interested in the idea. Nothing illuminates an anti-intellectual ignoramus more than the guy who argues "It's just a theory!" Come to think of it, this is yet another demonstration of the concept you so cooperatively went along with last week...where we allow the bigots/ignorant/anti-intellectual folks self-identify so we all know who they are and can avoid putting them in any position of responsibility. So again, thanks for that demonstration, you're a very cooperative subject!
Last edited:
If you're proud to associate yourself with him then embrace that man!
I don't know about you, but if an anti-semitic bigot agreed with something I said about hate I'd stop and think about exactly what I'd said. Agreeing with on an unrelated subject, like maybe bridge design, sure. Agreeing with him on hate, well that says a lot about you no matter how you justify it.
And I apologize if politely pointing out the inconsistencies in a belief system or calling out bigotry and anti-semitism makes someone a troll in your eyes. Again says a lot more about you than anyone else.
You're doing it again. Trolling and generalizing.
No. You didn't politely point out things, you condescended a few times; and asked the same question multiple times. You're trolling.
You basically seek pleasure in triggering believers of faith. I've seen you do it in this very thread before. I was expecting you after my initial 'religious' post.
Even so, hopefully someone has benefited from our exchange, including you.
Funny, I never get "triggered" about my beliefs. Probably because they're imminently defensible? Still waiting for you to answer that very simple question though, hope it isn't too "triggering" for you? One would think you would be proud to say you believed the bible was the infallible truth, but apparently you're a bit ashamed to admit you believe that?You're doing it again. Trolling and generalizing.
No. You didn't politely point out things, you condescended a few times; and asked the same question multiple times. You're trolling.
You basically seek pleasure in triggering believers of faith. I've seen you do it in this very thread before. I was expecting you after my initial 'religious' post.
Even so, hopefully someone has benefited from our exchange, including you.
I think you do get triggered. When you get triggered, you post this:
Anyone new to this discussion can read for themselves whether you've successfully defended your beliefs; whether I've answered your simple question; and what I've already said about infallible truths, starting here:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/six-biblical-truths-about-money.331077/page-5#post-4836162