Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 91 of 1229 (615101)
05-10-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by cavediver
05-10-2011 5:52 AM


Re: Cause
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
Am I really wasting my time here?
I don't know if you are, that is your decision.
You are supposed to be the educator in your field of study. If you care to share the knowledge you have gained over the years then you are not wasting your time as there are many lurkers around here that may be as dense as I am.
But I would say that typing 27 letters that does not answer the question, instead of two or three that would answer the question is possibly a waste of time.
cavediver writes:
What the hell are you talking about? Why are you asking questions, then ignoring everything that you are told?
I ask questions because you said the only stupid question is the one that is not asked.
So I ask questions for my benefit and the benefit of other that are just lurking around and are too timid to get in the fray.
Do you guys realize how much you intimidate people who ask questions and especially when they question what you believe to be a fact?
Why would the lurkers want to get in the fray to be attacked as you and others attack new posters?
I have alligator hide so it does not bother me, so pick on me all you desire or you could educate by answering the questions.
cavediver writes:
What the hell are you talking about?
Life cycle.
Beginning to exist, existing, then ceasing to exist.
cavediver writes:
No, ICANT. What is the point of answering your questions when all you do is contradict the answers you get? Why not ask your wife her opinion, rather than mine? If you're simply going to contradict anyway, surely it doesn't matter who you ask?
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
I know you hate being challenged on anything you say, but why not explain where the steps are instead of having a temper tanturam?
In Message 84 I said the following which brought about this outburst:
ICANT writes:
So when did the universe begin to exist?
But I have a question of your statement "for every step in time".
If time can be observed at 1/1,000,000,000,000,000th of a second and yet no discrete steps can be observed doesn't that mean that time just exists?
Or if it does move in discrete steps we just haven't reached the point those steps can be observed.
My understanding is that a Femtosecond which is the number above is the same as one second being equal to 32 million years.
So where are those steps you are talking about?
Now if the steps you claimed existed, did in fact exist, why not explain how they existed?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 5:52 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Son, posted 05-10-2011 11:36 AM ICANT has replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 92 of 1229 (615102)
05-10-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICANT
05-09-2011 2:13 PM


Re: Cause
First, small nitpick but your next message is not a reply to me but to scientificbob.
Actually, in the current theory, neither time nor the universe began in the conventional way but there is effectively a point in time when every other points in time is situated after it.
I just don't see how you can conclude there was existence (or non-existence) before time since "before time" is as nonsensical as north of north pole (hence the analogy Rahvin talked about).
The definitions of time you have cited are mostly about our perception of time and even through they are easy to understand intuitively, they are not really adapted to speak about the nature of the universe.
The second definition points out though that defining time (at least with words) has always been controversial.
I don't think I'm learned enough to explain it but I can at least describe the position that physicists hold. What I know though is whereas I don't fully understand their conception of time, it is consistent with reality and I can verify it everytime I use satelite based services (television, gps). It's not because an explanation is hard to understand that it is false and moreover, it's not because you can't understand their position that their actual position is different from what they're telling you.
The problem you have is that like everything else with reality, you had a preconceived notion of what physicists thought and when you discover that they don't hold this simple position (against which you were prepared to argue), you deny it like you deny reality. You're pretending that you know their minds better than themselves . You can never admit you could have gotten something wrong. We ran into the same problem with the lightning thread that's why even there you never recanted your position no matter how absurd it was.
After so many people tried to explain the current scientific theory, it's obvious you will never understand it (or even try to) so I don't think we could say much more about it. Then, it would be nice if you presented your own theory (with the predictions and all).
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2011 2:13 PM ICANT has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 93 of 1229 (615103)
05-10-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
05-10-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Cause
I would like to explain Cavediver's message a bit more, he presented an object with a location whose coordinates are x,y and z in space. You then respond some nonsensical things about x being a point in time, y somehow it's duration and z another point in time, so you can now see why he's thinking you're talking BS. Your answer had nothing to do with his message so he's rightfully wondering whether you even read his post. Of course, if you don't even read the posts you "answer" to, all debate with you is useless. The problem is not that you contradict him but that your "response" doesn't even seem related to his post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 10:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 12:58 PM Son has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 94 of 1229 (615104)
05-10-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
05-10-2011 1:36 AM


Re: Cause
Rahvin writes:
That's jsut the thing, ICANT - it didn't prove that a Creator was needed.
What makes you think the clergy of the day did not believe that science proving to their satisfaction that the universe had a beginning was proof that a creator was required?
Of course some of the clergy then and now think that a minimum value of time "proves" the necessity of a creator.
I said they were wrong, because it proves no such thing.
Rahvin writes:
That the Universe had a first moment sounds like it fits with your pre-existing hypothesis that there was a Creator.
That don't fit my hypothesis. Haven't you ever read any of my posts you have replied too?
In this thread alone I have mentioned multiple times that I believe the universe has always existed in some form.
And yet you continually argue with us about T=0 and the Big Bang. Your hypotheses are always mishmashed and poorly defined, and we wind up discussing the same damned things as the last time, with just about as much success in breaching the impenetrable wall of ignorance that is your thick skull.
In this thread, you've had two main arguments that I can see:
1) God is existence, and existence brought everything that exists into existence.
2) if the Universe had a beginning, there must have been a mechanism that caused it to begin.
The first isn't even a proper thought - it's circular, referencing itself.
The second is your usual cosmology-fail, and it's largely what we've been arguing about, since everyone is just laughing at you over your overuse of the word "existence."
Rahvin writes:
You dismiss utterly the other alternatives, and in fact you intellectually avoid arguments that suggest that, despite having a minimum value of time, the Universe may not have had a "beginning" in the way you choose to use the term.
Hawking says the universe has not always existed but had a beginning.
BBT requires a beginning to exist.
Expansion requires a beginning to exist.
I do not require a beginning to exist.
I do require a beginning to exist of the universe as we observe it today.
You understand neither Hawking nor expansion, because you don;t understand time. How can you possibly understand space-time if you don't even have a minimal layman's comprehension of time as a dimension of the Universe?
Rahvin writes:
Where is the beginning of the surface of a globe,
At the point your finger stops when you move it in the direction of the globe.
Nice dodge, ICANT. You;d think we had never heard that before. You know as well as I that it's an idiotic purposeful misinterpretation of an analogy. The surface of a globe has no boundaries - there is no beginning, no end. You could walk around a globe forever and never find the edge.
Rahvin writes:
I know the analogy is lost on you, we've tried it so many times before, and you're just not capable of understanding how causality breaks down when you don't have an earlier point in time than the first moment, a point farther North than the North Pole. But we can at least still point it out for the lurkers.
Why do you continue to make such a stupid analogy?
You are comparing the earth to the universe.
Can you go to the North Pole or the South Pole? Yes you can.
Can you walk on the surface of the earth? Yes you can.
Can you go to the surface of the Universe? No you can't.
Can you walk on the surface of the Universe? No you can't.
I know you like to use a balloon with ants crawling on the surface or dots on the surface and say that is an analogy of the universe.
The universe is nothing like the surface of a baloon with dots or ants on it.
In the balloon analogy the objects move away from each other in two directions but in the universe objects move away from each other in three directions.
Now if you had a big pile of dough and put raisins in the dough and baked it causing the dough to expand the raisns will move apart from each other in all three directions.
That is a decent analogy of the universe as that is what we observe in the universe.
So clean up your act and quit telling people how stupid they are because you can not explain your stupid analogy.
God Bless,
You're an unabashed idiot, ICANT. Those are all various analogies we've tried to use to help you understand the nature of the Universe, expansion, the Big Bang, and the first moments of time and the implications for causality.
Your reaction, rather than trying to understand what we try to tell you, is to call the analogies "stupid."
No wonder you can't understand what we tell you - you're like a 13-year old in school who, when presented with material he thinks might require a little effort to understand, calls it "stupid" and dismisses it.
How old are you again? I would have thought you'd have left those years behind an awful long time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 1:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 2:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 95 of 1229 (615111)
05-10-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ScientificBob
05-10-2011 6:56 AM


Re: Cause
Hi ScientificBob,
ScientificBob writes:
Stop being so contradictory. If it always existed, it doesn't need a beginning. There's really nothing more I can tell you. Your "explanation" is inherently contradicting. Either the universe always existed or it didn't. You clearly stated that you believe it did.
quote:
If it always existed, it doesn't need a beginning.
My position is that the universe has always existed in some form but that it had to beging to exist in its present form.
This position is in direct opposition to the Standard Model, which is the BBT.
It is not in opposition with string theory so called. Which has not been accepted as a theory.
The Standard BBT requires a beginning to exist some 13.7 billion years ago.
Expansion requires a beginning to exist in the past, as the universe could not have been expanding infinitly in the past as it would be dead already, as it will in the future.
ScientificBob writes:
Yet, you continue to argue about some magical mechanism of how it began.
No, I don't continue to argue about some magical mechanism of how it began.
I do keep asking the question:
If the universe has not always existed what is the mechanism by which the universe began to exist?
Remember my statement is: If the universe has not always existed then the universe had to begin to exist.
So I will ask you has the universe existed eternally?
OR
Did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago as per the Standard Model?
ScientificBob writes:
I want to hear from you either a retraction of the statement that you believe the universe always existed in some form
Since I have held that belief for 62 years I don't think you will ever get a retraction.
ScientificBob writes:
the acknowledgement that a universe that has always existed in some form doesn't need a mechanism to begin to exist.
I have never said a universe that has always existed needed a mechanism to begin to exist.
It would be necessary for a mechanism for the universe we see today to begin to exist as it has not always existed in its present form.
I have said many times in this thread:
If the universe has not always existed what is the mechanism by which the universe began to exist?
ScientificBob writes:
This discussion is completely pointless if you can't manage to propose an idea that is at least internally consistent.
In the OP =Message 1
I said:
ICANT writes:
There is existence (all things exist) and the opposite of that is non-existence (no thing exists). There is no known mechanism whereby existence can begin to exist from non-existence.
Can anyone present a case for existence without it being brought about by existence?
Statement: all things exist and the opposite of that is non-existence.
The Bible gives a mechanism whereby existence does exist.
I then asked, can anyone present a case for existence without it being brought about by existence?
In other words if there was non-existence, what would be the mechanism whereby existence could begin to exist?
Can you present such a mechanism?
ScientificBob writes:
PS: the universe CONTAINS matter, it is not made of matter.
If all the matter and energy which are interchangable was removed from the universe, what would you have left?
I say you would have an absence of anything which equals non-existence.
So are you sure that matter and energy do not make up the universe?
The folks Here seem to think the universe is made up of matter and energy, they say:
quote:
What Is Dark Energy? More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.
Dark energy is 70% of the universe.
Dark matter is 25% of the universe.
Normal matter is 5% of the universe.
When I add all those up I get 100% of the universe.
Is my math wrong?
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : Remove Son's name and insert ScientificBob to correct wrong citation.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ScientificBob, posted 05-10-2011 6:56 AM ScientificBob has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 96 of 1229 (615115)
05-10-2011 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
05-09-2011 7:18 PM


Re: Cause
ICANT writes:
I believe there is eternal existence as I put forth in the OP.
So what is it that is existing eternally?
ICANT writes:
But would you explain how there could be a state of probabilities if there was no existence.
If two membranes from two other universes collide and the borrowed energy gives rise to a third universe then that would in theory give rise to a big bang of sorts. A quantum fluctuation. Nothing there and boom a expanding universe.
ICANT writes:
I did not say the cosmological constant was to show the universe as self existent.
Yes you did. Right here in message 80.
ICANT message:80 writes:
Since Einstein believed the universe had always existed he invented a fudge factor which he said later in life was his biggest blunder.
I am finished with our discussion ICANT, you do not remember what you say from one post to the next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2011 7:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 2:58 PM 1.61803 has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 97 of 1229 (615117)
05-10-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Son
05-10-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Cause
Hi Son,
Son writes:
I would like to explain Cavediver's message a bit more, he presented an object with a location whose coordinates are x,y and z in space.
You can not have a life cycle of an object unless that object has existed eternally or began to exist.
The location of the existence of the object is irrelevant.
Son writes:
The problem is not that you contradict him but that your "response" doesn't even seem related to his post.
Does no one here know the meaning of IF?
OR
Is it invisible to everyone?
My main emphasis here is:
Things exist.
Those things has existed eternally,
OR
Those things began to exist.
If they began to exist, what is the mechanism whereby they began to exist?
Can you present such a mechanism?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Son, posted 05-10-2011 11:36 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Son, posted 05-10-2011 1:35 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 98 of 1229 (615120)
05-10-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
05-10-2011 12:58 PM


Re: Cause
But you first asked about the path of an object in SPACE-time. He responded using four coordinates (x,y,z,t) and you are responding as if he was speaking about a single dimension. How can we hope to have an honest debate when you can't even admit it when you are wrong about MIDDLE-school maths? Moreover, instead of addressing such basic things (yes, middle-school maths are basics), you're trying to cover your mistake with another word salad that had nothing to do with the post.
Otherwise, how do you explain that you used x,y and z as points in time, if you had truly understood his post, you would have explained that to you (x,y,z) are irrevelant and would have used t1, t2 and t3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 12:58 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 1:38 PM Son has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 99 of 1229 (615122)
05-10-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Son
05-10-2011 1:35 PM


Re: Cause
But you first asked about the path of an object in SPACE-time.
How's your door-frame? Mine seems to have gained a rather deep impression of my forehead...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Son, posted 05-10-2011 1:35 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Son, posted 05-12-2011 11:01 AM cavediver has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 100 of 1229 (615127)
05-10-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Rahvin
05-10-2011 11:38 AM


Re: Cause
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
How can you possibly understand space-time if you don't even have a minimal layman's comprehension of time as a dimension of the Universe?
You are right I can not comprehend time as a dimension of the universe.
Without man's concept of time we only have existence.
Man figured out a method to measure duration by using the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. They divided it up into seconds, minutes, and hours and called one revolution a day. Mankind got this from the creation story in Genesis chapter 1.
In our universe three co-ordinates are needed to locate a point or object within the universe.
A dimension of time is not required.
Existence of the object or point is necessary for location to occur.
Rahvin writes:
You could walk around a globe forever and never find the edge.
I bet you I could find the seam where it is put together and separate the globe into two pieces.
Rahvin writes:
Your reaction, rather than trying to understand what we try to tell you, is to call the analogies "stupid."
But I don't call all analogies "stupid" only the stupid ones presented to model the universe like the balloon analogy.
Do you remember the responses I got when I mentioned standing on the surface of the universe a couple of years ago. Yet that is what the balloon analogy says as it puts everything on the surface. But then I am told there is no outside of the universe.
Therefore there would be no surface of the universe.
It is not my understanding that is flawed but the presentation being presented.
I think it was Einstein that said something to the effect that, if you can not explain a subject where it can be understood you do not understand the subject yourself.
Try something that is real like the dough with the raisins in it.
That one actually presents what is observed in the universe.
Rahvin writes:
How old are you again? I would have thought you'd have left those years behind an awful long time ago.
I am old enough to know that when you don't have an argument to refute what is presented you resort to personal attacks rather than discuss what is presented.
Has the universe existed eternally?
OR did the universe begin to exist?
If the universe began to exist, can you present a mechanism for that process?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Rahvin, posted 05-10-2011 11:38 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 2:24 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 102 by Son, posted 05-10-2011 2:56 PM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 101 of 1229 (615130)
05-10-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ICANT
05-10-2011 2:11 PM


Re: Cause
You are right I can not comprehend time as a dimension of the universe.
I know, it is difficult at first to comprehend, but it can be done if you relax your pre-suppositions and look at some analogies we use in space-time physics - the balloon analogy and the globe analogy are two that we use. I will explain them to you.
A dimension of time is not required.
Ah, you already know the answer? I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I also completely failed to realise your grasp of the subject, as you have just confidently rejected all the work of the past 100 years by giants of my field such as Einstein, Wheeler, Feynman, Dirac, Fermi, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, etc.
You must have an extraordinary ability in this subject area, and it would be pointless for me to add anything further, as your knowledge certainly dwarfs mine.
Thanks for your time, ICANT. You stupid twat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 2:11 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 102 of 1229 (615134)
05-10-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ICANT
05-10-2011 2:11 PM


Re: Cause
Well, time is required as a dimension, otherwise, as I pointed out, all satellite-based services wouldn't work. How can you explain that we can make work so many satellites, have gps if the physicists are wrong?? People can't make you understand this subject for two reasons that are independant of their understanding of the subject:
-you refuse to learn or try to understand ,as demonstrated by your refusal to retract your position on positron/electron being responsible for lightning as well as your refusal to admit you were wrong about middle school maths in this very thread
-you don't even understand middle-school maths or high-school physics making it impossible for us to teach you anything more complex, unless you think that all scientists don't understand those subjects but are still able to make all of today's technology work?
You're also stuck on those two irrevelant questions while you have yet to present your own "science".
edit: you also can't make a difference between me and scientificbob despite my correction, demonstrating that you barely read the posts you're answering to.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 2:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2011 3:12 PM Son has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 103 of 1229 (615135)
05-10-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by 1.61803
05-10-2011 12:55 PM


Re: Cause
Hi 1,
1.61803 writes:
So what is it that is existing eternally?
All that exists including all that ceased to exist.
1.61803 writes:
If two membranes from two other universes collide and the borrowed energy gives rise to a third universe then that would in theory give rise to a big bang of sorts. A quantum fluctuation. Nothing there and boom a expanding universe.
Why would you need two other universes?
All you need is a vaccum in which the Hartley/Hawking instanton could pop into existence in and create a universe just as we see today.
But if two membranes from one or two existing universes were to collide and give rise to a third universe those two membranes would have to contain all the energy and matter in the universe.
You do realize there is just as much evidence for such happening as there is supporting the Bible account of creation.
But now you have introduced a new universe from existing material.
Has that existing material existed eternally?
OR did it begin to exist?
If it began to exist, can you present a mechanism for that process?
1.61803 writes:
ICANT writes:
I did not say the cosmological constant was to show the universe as self existent.
Yes you did. Right here in message 80.
ICANT message:80 writes:
Since Einstein believed the universe had always existed he invented a fudge factor which he said later in life was his biggest blunder.
I am finished with our discussion ICANT, you do not remember what you say from one post to the next.
If you would increase your reading ability you could understand the difference between what Einstein believed and what I say.
Einstein believed the universe to be eternal believing in a static universe.
Because of that he invented the cosmological constant.
So before you go could you underline and bold the part of the following statement:
ICANT message:80 writes:
Since Einstein believed the universe had always existed he invented a fudge factor which he said later in life was his biggest blunder.
that states:
ICANT writes:
I did not say the cosmological constant was to show the universe as self existent.
Einstein simply believed the universe was eternal, and supported that belief by inventing the cosmological constant.
At present there are those who think he may have been correct.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by 1.61803, posted 05-10-2011 12:55 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by 1.61803, posted 05-10-2011 5:50 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 104 of 1229 (615136)
05-10-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Son
05-10-2011 2:56 PM


Re: Cause
Hi Son,
Son writes:
edit: you also can't make a difference between me and scientificbob despite my correction, demonstrating that you barely read the posts you're answering to.
Sorry to keep getting the names mixed up.
Out of 103 posts 41 are mine so names can get confusing.
But did I get the content mixed up?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Son, posted 05-10-2011 2:56 PM Son has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 105 of 1229 (615140)
05-10-2011 3:45 PM


Re: OP
Hi All,
In the OP I presented the following:
ICANT writes:
The question is:
Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?
If not, then what is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.
I will ask the questions in this form.
1. Has the universe existed eternally?
OR
2. Did the universe begin to exist?
3. If the universe began to exist, can you present a mechanism whereby that process would take place?
Is there anyone here at EvC that is willing to put their bias aside and answer these questions with supporting evidence or argumentation?
Some have expressed exasperation at the course the discussion is taking. But there has been very little attention paid to the topic of the OP.
So lets discuss the 3 questions above.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 05-10-2011 5:15 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024