GOD IS DEAD

Rahvin writes: I suppose the 'No boundary Proposal' is as limited as your arguments were in refuting my simple proposition. If not lets go ahead and take a look at it, unless all you want to do is complain about everybodys not understanding things, a theme, that is chatacteristic of most of your posts to people.Its not surprising that you dont recognize a bit of wit or humor in a response. My simple admonition was to present it in a simple format so we could all underatand it and apply it. I will understand that all attempts at humor and wit should be excluded when addressing a stuff shirt such as yourself, ha ha.Geeez, ya just cant lighten up with some folks.Rahvin writes:Talk about "not having the slightest clue of what you are talking about", son, you missed this one by ten thousand miles.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : To add insult to injury.

A writes:I was under the impression this website was about making and setting out arguments, not taking cheap shots and making assertions. What in the heck does your latest statement mean? If you cant make an argument, just say as much.Why in the world do you think I am being pious aobout anything?D Bertot

Rahvin writes:I dont have sufficient time at present to respond to the entirity of this post, however, "sufficient knowledge" or not, could someone please present the No boundary theory, pleae, as it relates to the current discussion. If it is as weak as I am assuming, I will understand why you dont, ha ha. Another attempt at humor.See ya in a while, got to take a car to the shop and hoof it all the way home, which will probably produce a massive heart attack and your problem will be solved.D Bertot

Agobot writes:NJ writes:Beautifully stated NJ, the hitting of the provrbial nail on the head, so to speak.The statement is further meaningless in the respect that it cannnot even begin to be demonstrated that life is meaningless or pointless in the first place. The mere fact that one can arrive at such a conclusion in thier mind, only demonstrates the awesome capability of the mind in the light of evidence to the contrary. One does not cancel or negate the other.Or as C.S. Lewis speculated, there is no need to speak of something as "evil" or "bad", if there is no absolute "good" to pit it against.NJ writes:The only true form of madness is to willfully disobey what you know to be the truth. Working really hard at it in agrumentation form only magnifies the problem."He sends them strong delusion that they believe a lie"How indeed, do you, destroy someone elses faith, you can't. You can only destroy your own.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writes: I suppose it would be ungracious to point out how arrogant this statement sounds in the first place, so I wont. Secondly, it matters little to you and others how much knowledge an individual has about the specifics of evolution or any other related topic, because your conclusions about them are going to be the same anyway. Thirdly, as I am sure you are aware, demonstrating that an argument is a strawman and claiming that it is are two different things entirely, correct? The following quotes are form Given Giorbran and others in, 'Stephen Hawkin and the Time has no Boundary Purposal'Stephen Hawking and the No Boundary Proposal I am not a Physicist either, and correct me if I am wrong, but isnt "No Boundary" the samething as infinite or eternal? How does changing names and terms assist that which is already an accepted idea in the first place.Secondly, how does imagining time in different directions verse simply time in general assist one past the point of time of the Big Shlabang or a point further than that point other than a simple contemplation of it in the first place. In other words I missing the big idea here that we are suppose to fall all over with "shock and Awe". Isnt this old wolves in new sheeps clothing?"But there is another kind of time in a veritcal direcion", Duh? So what. How does that help your problem of the universe and its changing properties. In other words God is the "Same, yesterday, Today and Forever". There is no changing in his essence, at all in any instsnce in any degree for any purpose forever in any directionThirdly, why is it ok to imagine time in a different direction, when you cant even demonstrate with accuracy that it goes in one direction in the first place. IMO, time is not real in the first place, while it can be measured, you are only measuring the affects of "it", in a sea of eternality. Sure there was a T-0, if you want to call it that, but it is so involved in the sea of infinity, it cannot be measured to the point of its "direction" and actuality, so to speak. Imagining one does not establish the other, so you are right back at the same problem with new and better terms to describe that which you cannot "really" grasp or measure anyway.I thought this might get the roll bowling.. Next?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Ned writesThis is my whole point Ned, your taking a Term, "No boundary" and making it mean whatever you wish. If there is no boundary to the surface of the earth as to be distinguished form the space that immediatley proceed it, then terms, ideas and concepts have on meaning at all. Chaniging meanings of words doesnt work either.No boundary in the context of space could only mean limitless in any direction, correct?D Bertot

PaulK writith:NosyNedster from Canada writesWhen I say Ned I mean "anyone' that would take the simple word/s and change its meaning to apply to something that clearly does have a starting point as the super amazing guy in the wheelchair (I would like to know where the boxing glove is actually kept and can the nurse reset it when necessary), points out about the universe. The universe no matter how you would like to describe or imagine it, had a beginning. Hawkins view, is really refreshing, considering the past views like that of Sagan, that "the universe is all there ever was is now or ever will be"I read the whole article and I did not pick out of it only what supports my position. However, the following comments, out of the article itself, should make it painfully clear that these are not theories that can be tested, they are speculative at best. Pointing out or using the illustration of the circuference of the earth as existing with no boundary, is simplistic at best. Ofcourse it has boundaries at every single point at which I defy the law of gravity by jumping or in a space craft, it is obvious that it has boundaries. Hence if the universe had a beggining, it had boundaries then and has now.Satholic Chientist writes: Really? A inch higher than mount Eversest or just bend your knees and jump. How about going straight through the earth to the other side, then a couple of miles in space. No boundary? If space is anything close to the earth, there is probably something on the other side of space. If indeed space is finite there would of necessity have to be. My guess is that, that which appears to be boundless meshes with the eternal nature of things or God in a way we cannot identify. At any rate the universe is not eternal, if it had a start, it is therefore not the result of itself, asuming we dont want describe entropy as a characteristic of something eternal. Bertrand Russell in his debate with F.C. Copelstone (Catholic Philosopher) stated that the finite nature of things may be true of some things but not all things.If things are here however, this is the clearest indication that atleast something is eternal in the strictest since of the word. .The argument is not whether the universe is like a big circular argument but did it start at some point. If we know this we really only have to discuss the characteristics of that which would constitute the eternal character. Is it logically possible and it is not a logical contradiction, for the universe to be eternal, this is one logical possibility, or that which produced our universe and so on. There is also one other that is not a logical contradiction, they are the only choices. 15 Billion years ago doesnt sound like a "good start" ( no pun intended) for the eternal principle.The only other possiblity, the one that states "I Am that I Am", a statement that can actually be tested by the obsevation and existence of things and the fact that things like Carl Sagan which defines the decaying universe as "all" that there is,is now himself basically nonexistent in almost every respect. Now that is Iorny.Onifre writes: What then is the source and that which makes it finite? What is the consideration other than the big shlabang, that produced the boundless yet finite universe?Quote:Since "Imaginary time" cannot actually be demonstrated as really different from anytime, this principle as a third possibility cannot be considered as such. It is a deliniation and concepualitzation of the concepts finite and infinite. The very fact that it uses these terms abundantly with no real alternatives disqualifies it as any other possibility. The "purposal" attempts to give definition and meaning within the obvious context of that which can only be discribed as utimately eternal. There seems to be no other choice. Im sorry if the idea of an "Unmoved Mover" is unpalatable, but there are no other choices. The easiest way to demonstrate this is the fact that we are here, anything is here and we can contemplate this question.Quote:This is making way to much of a simple principle. This would be like saying that the water in the top of the glass is somehow different in character and nature than the water in the bottom of the glass. The simple principle is that its just time if you are here on earth or in deep space. Relative perhaps, but time nonetheless. Time would only have menaing from the standpoint of the universes starting point, correct. But time and actual space are two different things. Even though we cannot percieve or see it, space, if it had a starting point and can bend, it therefore would naturally have to have a boundary of some sort, even if it was that which originally produced it. Somethings got to be eternal eventually in the process.Rahvin writes:No I understand its principle, but besides being speculative as the above statements indicate, it falls short to expalin anything utimately. Like the examples you provide, they themelves invole the principle of contengency, no matter how we can imagine or percieve thier pos------------------------ibilites. Besides all of this me and my brother spent many ours in 7-11 playing that very game. The real problem was that darn ship that came out of nowhere and caused panic and terror in me. Missle Command, now that was a game. If you had either one of these original games, you would have acouple of vluable items What do you think will be next, after the "steady state theory" and now the No boundary Purposal". Do you think an eternal God will be a solution to the problem for science at some point. I understand the problem with the eternality, no beginning or end of a Being such as God. I have wrestled with it all of my theological life. There are simply no other solutions that I can fathom or find.An actual wall or boundary would not dignify an intelligence such as Gods. If there is actually no boundary, from our perspective and yet it is finite, this would actually dignify the expression which characterizes him. "I AM THAT I AM. An expression of eternality and absolute existence. The expression by the Apostle Paul, that at his appearing and our ressurection, we will be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, and we will be like him, this, I believe will give us I suspect, the ability to transverse that alleged no bondary with the greatest of ease. That is ofcourse, if you believe in these things, I do. Ofcourse we would need the immortal body to both see and transverse that presently unseen boundary."Preach on, brother"!!D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

paulK writes:This statement makes no sense, since even hawkins admits it had a beginning. Self-contained would mean it was eternal and did not have a beginnig. That which is contengent on something else, in this case an admited beginning cannot be described as self-supporting. The Purposal address no real solution to anything, except to ignore obvious facts. Testable does not mean the same as an actual observation of the limits of space and its entire properties, as he clearly indicates. Read the article again. Thats the point. These so-called discriptions of time are imaginary, theres only real time or just time, nothing intersects anywhere else with anything else in connection with time, its fluidic in its entirity, its all the same in all its parts, everywhere at the samtime, like a glass of water.In fact there is only space and matter and time is only a concept not a thing that can be measured or tested like a physical property, except from a relative position of a person and thier surroundings or the beggining of the universe itself. If i were there at the exact moment of thecreation of the universe, "I" could say or call it the first second in time. Yet that is simply what I would describe it, not that is actually something as real or tangible, as if it were a measurable thing in and of itself, verses anything that came before or after it.Further, the idea or contemplation that some other reality (time) if you will exists at the same time or place that I am in is simply a contemplation, since there is nothing but this exact moment, all else like "imaginary time" is speculation. There is only a present condition or situation in space or existence in the entire universe at one time and at the same time. No time lines, no imaginary time, etc.Its just a way of imagining time. Its just time and you or he could not demonstrate it in other '"real" way, than theory, as he indicates. Read the article again. If its not put it on a tape and I will watch it. Show me this theory in actuality.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Again, nothing in this so-called puropsal offers a solution to the question of what caused the big bang. This is simply a discription of what the essence of space may or may not be like. An ant in the center of the earth that never reaches this so-called unbounded surface would not need to experience its context to understand he came from something other than his limited self, assuming he could think about it. But it did have a beginning, so a boundary is a foregone conclusion. The start of anything is obvious that it came from somthing else, correct? Great, then since God as a creator,is a very plausible explanation and no problem to science, it will be no problem for him to be discussed in the classroom, correct?D Bertot

Cavediver writes:.You do realize that this statement is itself theoretical and contradictory all in one swoop (making a swift diving attack). Your initial statement is categorical beyond belief. How in the world can you make such an absolute statment, you ape like creature limited to a relative routine galaxy. Its theoretical and not testable or demonstratable, from any "real" standpoint. Calculations, estimations and speculations do not always equate to actualization when speaking about the unknown or undemonstratable properties. You might as well be speculating about the "theory of relativity", which can only be theororized not "truely" demonstrated. So when you state: Yours are still only theories, due to the "fact" that you cannot "demonstrate" them from any real standpoint. I would remind you that you are the one who stated: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Are your theories and speculation limited to your understanding and the perspective you have at present. If they are not, simply demonstrate them to me in actuality and not in theory. Show me (dont just theorize)what is outside T=0. Or "show me" that the universe actually has no boundary aside from theoretical concepts. Theories change with the passage oftime and new information. What is "completely" acceptable today is disregarded later as nearly unreliable and inaccurate, often times. This ofcourse is completely acceptable and a good practice if we keep this objective behavior in mind at present as well. Insisting that vertually untestable theories are absolute in character is simply not a consistent or valid way to proceed in such discussions. Your statement is contradictory because it starts with the false idea that there is nothing outside that which t already exists, except more space, a proposition which you cannot demonstrate outside of a very "eloquent and aesthetic (beautiful) "concept". You are assuming that that which exists before T=0 is simply more of the same. It may indeed be as you state, however, it is equally possible that it is not. The point is two-folled. No test is actually possible to demonstrate it either way and it is equally logical to assume that a cause if required. So your accusation that Logic and commonsesne cannot be applied before physics, is even itself contradictory, because you are only speculating from the best possible calculations of some thing you could not possibly test in the first place. You are applying your logic and commensense , (poorly I might add) before during and after the application of speculative theory, during the theory and after theory.If I am not mistaken it is you fellas that contend for a "model" that can only be tested in the face of actuality, correct? You say if such is not present it is not "science", correct. In other words you can only test theories to the extend of your association with existing priniples relative to yourself. Anything outside obsevation or our immediate surrounding can only be considered a theory or speculation, not absoluteor demonstratable reality, correct?Secondly it is contradictory because you are ASSUMING there is no cause required, another assumption you cannot demonstrate. You replacing actual demonstratable fact with assumption and then concluding there is no cause required. The absolute conclusion that no cause is necessary has to be besed in actual fact not theory. For example you state: I am nearly sure when you put this in English (ha ha), it will equate to the fact you are theorizing about things and cannot demonstrate it in reality. Do us a favor and relate this information in usable language that will allow an average person to evaluate it in connect ion with the context of the discussion. Thanks.Wonderful. Now please take me to this and show it to me outside you mind. "We simply wrap T=0 to some other time". Ofcourse, this is the exact problem if you are going to "warp" (attribute) the beginning (T=0) to some other time or place, you circumvent the possiblity that it was created instead of simply being more of this or that. Lets see what this THEORY sounds like in English, ok? Presently though, I would think that "our Cauchy data, (i.e that which causes that at time zero) is simply to the far future of T=0> We simply wrap the Universe round as one huge time machine.......", etc, etc, etc, indicates that you are stuggling for an answer to the explanation of T=0. There is a great deal of circular (no pun intended) reasoning taking place. I ofcourse will wait for a simply english translation though to see if I am correct.
cavediver writes I suppose it will always be true that scientists, in this instance a phycisist, make poor philosophers. Logic would dictate and reason would corroborate that it matters little where intelligence resides to the deduction of physical principles or properties. In this statement you have demonstrated my point beyond any doubt that your conclusions are limited to your surroundings and understanding of the entire universe and that they can be considered little less than theories. You stuck your proverbial foot in you proverbial mouth.What we would like to see taught is the only other logical possiblity to the idea that the universe is a product of itself or eternal in its make up. The premise that an intelligent force eternal in character created a universe that is clearly contingent for its existence on something else, has nothing to do with theology. It is a logical proposition clearly deducable from physical properties.PaulK writes:Fair enough. Then state in simple readable english and a couple of simple sentences the sense in which he does believe the universe had a beginning. In other words explain how the universe can be Finite or had a start some 15 billion years ago. Was it (our universe)there before it started? Your assuming that I was saying no tests were conducted, I did not. I said there is no way to test your test against the actual reality of the universes ultimate properties, thats why these things are called theories. The theories will change as more information comes available. Testing a hypothesis is not the same as testing irrefutable data. Data such as the law of gravity is not hypothetical in character, therefore its results are actually measurable. Other things as these theories are not as simple and explainable and so they remain theoretical.Onifre(pyro) writes;Is your implication then, that nothing as nothing existed before T=0. What exacally are you saying was there before the BB, if no space and time, then what?Bertot writes: Onfire writesThe physic my friend is a test of a hypothesis. It cannot be demonstrated in actuality. Since time is not a not real property like space and matter one can only speculate (get it, speculate) of its effects and possibilites in realtion to reality. Theorizing even from a physics standpoint is still just theorizing. For example, Physics can only theroize from the best possible information what produced the BB in the first place, it cannot actually show you what its source was in actuality.Quote from link:"Could have been born". A theory about a theory.Catholic Scientist writes:"could Be". Theoretical, correct? Mathmatical expression as you deem them, while accurate in and of themself only offer possible solutions to theories, where there is not enough information to corroborate an exact conclusion. Observation, experience,logic and commonsesne identify certain and in this instance the conclusions that only a limited number of possiblites could be involved. Therefore your estimations that "theological concepts of eternity" do not qualify are inaccurate again and again. It has nothing to do with religiousity, it has everything to do with actual expessions that conform to reality, thedefinitons of Finite or Infinite , nothwithstanding. Let me help you out a little more fella. Mathmatics is limited to an admittedly finite exsistence. It can only expalin that in which it is contained. If there is a point at which the "laws of physics" break down it follows that there is a place where they cannot be applied to explain the properties of things. Or atleast there is some other law that would expalin its properties different from the present ones. Physics is limited, it is not an explanation for all things everywhere in all places, at all times.
Eternality made up or not and, in any way you wish to describe physical properties are the logical conclusion of an obvious exsistence. Put what ever term on eternality you wish you will still come up with the very real conclusion that matter is self existent, or limited to only one other possibilty, that of an eternal creator. theological conversations do not produce such a conclusion, reality does. As I have now demonstrated you are absolutely wrong in you conclusions and estimations.
Bertot writes:onfire writes Lets go to your next statement to help. Your almost correct. Space is real and matter is real, time is not an actual thing. What you call time are simply the effects of space and matter, which you deem as time. As such there are not time lines, imaginary time or lines of time that intersect with a direct time line, etc. There are only the effects of an expanding space or results of matter deferintiations or changes. As such, time lines or imaginary time or what ever else you want to call it are theoretical speculations that can only be tested in mathmatical equations but not testable in actuality or reality. The effects of space in its entirity are exacally the same all the "time" in all places of space. Ofcourse a different place in the entirity would give you a different perspective of space and "time". Yet in no since are you in the past or future, just in another location with a different perspective.
Another way of expressing it is that there is only the present. The present is the only real property even in space. The is no past, present and future existing simultaneouly in different deminsions. It ofcourse can be theorized with the application of mathmatical expression, however it cannot be demonstrated in reality. In other words if I am standing on one side of the earth and viewing the night sky another person "said" to be in another time zone is ahead or behind me. In reality he is in the same space and "time" as myself only with a different perspective.
In the same way mathmatical expressions (physics)if you will lends terms and ideas that offer "possible" solutions to THEORIES, that are concievable in theory but may not be applicable to actuality or reality. I fully understand what is being "theorized" here. Its simply that if one deems it as having a starting point or deem it as finite verses a continuous undistrurbed process, it matters little if its boundaries are boundless, it could have been "designed" that way and for that purpose, yet it started somewhere. If my concepts of "start" or beginning are not in line with what hawkins is saying, then enlighten me on what I am missing atleast in that respect. Started, began about 15 millon years ago, in what respect and how?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Jawwill writes:Quote:Jaywill thanks for you most recent comment and quotes, thats funny.However,I am interested in starting a discussion with Rahvin in the context of the following statement. I would greatly appreciate you assistance and knowledge in these matters if you have the time. He states:Rahvin:Jaywill would you have the time? I would greatly appreciate ICANT''S, Iano's, your and any of the other fine young theologians (on this websites) assistance in this discussion.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onifre writes:Think, man, Think. Anytime you make any comment you are implying something else. "the ball is red". I greatly appreciate the fact that physics attempts to explain and at the sametime not explain the meaning of "nothingness". By obligation and argumentation and pure necessity they would ofcourse need to give some sort of attempt. From your statement then and having read the very fine article you presented, it appears from a "physics" standpoint there was atleast something, no matter (no pun intemded) that produced the BB.Regarless of how physcis defines matter or space and the conclusions and attempts It draws to produce and answer, it is not true that from an existence standpoint that "nothingness" is not an alternative. By the very nature of the case, if "something" exists, the possiblity from a reason standpoint, that absolutely nothing could exists is a foregone conclusion. However, because things do exist or anything exists it becomes very unlikely that there was ever "nothingness", yet such apremise remains from a purely Logical standpoint.Physics is not all that we have. Reality and its foregone conclusions are equally a part of matter and space. This is why it is so vitally important to move out of the ideology that space and matter can eventually provide an ultimate answer for, lets say, the reasons as to why things are here in the first place. Logic, commonsense and reason are at the forefront, middle and conclusions of a study of any physical property.Hence the are only two possibilites, matter, vacums, or anyother property you describe or idnetify are eternal in character or they are not. An eternal God (creator) whos character, nature and makeup itself is infinite or it is not. The point is that physics does not give us the final and only explanation of things.Infinite and finite as words, do not necessarily require and answer from physics standpoint exclusiveley. Logic reason and commonsense are real properties to the explanation of any property. These are not arm chair mussings as you suggest. You want to know the real truth. Actually, they are the only valid ways of giving you any ultimate answers you seek, even if you are not considering religious concepts and ideas.Dont you find it a bit ironic, that this is the very thing you are doing here in this website. You using all the force of your reasoning abilites to substantiate your points, then almost without trying, dismiss it as a way of expalining the nature of existence or an answer to the conclusions you draw form the results. Its a part of the process, before, during and after. Now, take that very keen intellect and apply it to ultimate questions. It is for all intents and purposes the way you will come to any valid conclusions concerning the existence of things, why they are here. Im not saying you will agree with mine, but the process of 'deductive reasoning', will play the greatest part. But your reasoning abilites tell you there is something there nonetheless, correct? I dont reject physics as at all, I simply realize its obvious limitations. In the same way you can ignore the science of logic and dedutive reasoning, but it will not go away. Physics is not only getting a few things right,its getting a whole lot of things correct. It just that much of it is speculative in alot of respects, as your article mentions at the end And it will change again and again. It will however not chage as to the ultimate reason for things. There are no other logical possibilites. In these instances its not about right or wrong but "Possibilites". We use the art and science of Logic and deductive reasoning in every aspect of our lives, and in every decision we make everyday, why not in response to the questions of existence and things.I dont think these men are wrong either about thier use of physics and its exact methodology, but as so many of them point out themselves, alot is theoretical and speculative. It may even be the case that thier conclusions reach to the very end of matter and space, but then they are also reduced to using another method of fact gathering at that point, for answer to very logical questions Logic and dedeuctive reasoning do not flow from religiousity or theistc concepts. It flows from the science of reason in conjuntion with physical properties. If you were here yet absolutely nothing else, or everything was here with no intellect, there ofcourse would be no need or way to ask and find reasons for things. Both however are here, and the only reason scientists look for the answers to these question is that they are askin questions, searching using the art of reason. There has to be a good reason for thier searching and the correct methology of reasoning in that regard.
In this respect the conclusions they draw regarding "time" will probably be limited in the context of an obvious reality of eternality. The reaserch while encouraged, will only take them to a certain point, then without acknowledging the "logical" limitations, realites and restricted possibilites, that reason will demonstrate or allow, the process will breakdown or simply be disregarded as unsolvable. A conclusion which is unwarrented and accepted if you are limited in yourfact gathering methods. Speculation has nothing to do with logical limitations that would apply, no matter the information you aquire.
acquire.
Speaking of time zero, what is it you believe that we will eventually understand. Wouldnt it be true to say that when and if we reach such a state or conclusion, that it will only push the process backwards again, assuming that we find atleast "something"? I would repalce your word "manipulate", in your above quote with the words "logical deduction", with no fear of contradiction. Your premise here would be correct if physics were the only method of understanding reality. In the context of our discussion, as I have now demonstrated, the science of Logic and deductive reasoning actually enhances the science of Physcis. It gives answers where the physical methodolgy breaks down (no pun intended). Time in this respect is not an actual consideration due to the nature of the fact that something is eternal in character, matter or a creator. These are the cold hard facts. Looking for an answer (which is fine) from an physical standpoint is very valuable, in the respect that it would allow many scientific comforts and conviences, that enhance human life and increase our understanding of the cosmos. Understanding "time" and discovering its applications will only find you looking for more reasons for more time. Its an endless process. Again, this methodology is tried and tested as well.Rahvin writes;That which you choose to call the only real logical possibility, eternal in character and make up, would matter little if we used the method of deductive reasoning applied to obvious physical properties, to establish it/his existence. The basis for believing in God is not theological or fanciful, its based in sound reasoning. It is just that the Judeo-Christian God fits within the framework of this rational process.Therefore your accusation that "lack of falsification alone is somehow evidence of existence", is not warrented in this instance. God is not a default.Also, when we are finished with this thread, I would encourage you to go ahead, in a simple, readable paragraph, set out your proposition in connection with the assertion, that Christ 3 day weekend was somehow a mockery of justice. I guess we should wait until we are done here.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

PaulK writesMy "error" is obvious in your mind only. You left offthe part where I said it could not be tested in "actuality", you were not there, you did not witness these events. The best you can do is speculate with the "actual test" you conduct presently, which only carry you back so far into the process. Once you reach the process, you are specualting even further. If Hawking is not demonstrating atleast some hesitation and reservations about its limitations, his comments in this respect would make no sense. If he is not relating that some speculation is involed in the process, then demonstrate what his comments would have relevence to in this regard. In other words he has some hesitations and demonstrates some reservations. What are they about? My friend this involves some fact and some theory. All of it cannot be tested in actuality. If it can, then put on a video and show it to me. Demonstrating conclusively what existed before this or that is not possible, you can only theorize, get it, theorize using the best possible information what the actual situation, information and circumstances were.When I stated it could not be tested I was refering to it in the demonstration mode. Its called the "law of Gravity", not the theory. You can test and demonstrate the principle in actuality and realization. The same clearly cannot be said of most theories. Most involve some conjecture and speculation.Again, even Hawking has some reservations about the results as he clearly indicates. What might these be?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onifre, thanks for you recent comments and others by several individuals, I will respond to the majority of them over the next day or so, as I am very busy today. There is nothing in them that presents any challenge or that has not already been generally addressed. Thanks for your patience, I will try to get to each comment, as I usually do. Thanks again.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cavediver (rocket scientist)Ah, Cavediver, the clown from the UK, that supposes if he is abusive and rude, this somehow allows him to avoid obvious evidence to the contrary. You pathetic attempts at intimidation won't work with me junior. You have got to be kidding me. You have'nt even scratched the surface at an attempt to meet the challenge. Which is the equivalent of saying you cant and like any poor debater you make excuses for your quick exit. See ya junior.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.