Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 1:30 AM
339 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 336 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,043 Year: 28,649/21,208 Month: 715/1,847 Week: 90/475 Day: 0/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 121 of 185 (486588)
10-22-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Agobot
10-22-2008 6:25 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
We know the universe exists.

We do not know that a creator exists

Does assuming that which we do not even know exists was the first uncaused rather than that which we know does exist was the first uncaused make any sense?

On what basis?

Evidence? The little speck of energy that floats into an ocean of energy that it calls an universe wants evidence for the source of the energy? It almost sounds romantic. I wish we could establish a connection with the creators, i bet what you call science can do that one day.

The little speck of energy that answers the other speck has irrationally decided that we need to regress the uncaused one extra layer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 6:25 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 7:23 PM Straggler has responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 122 of 185 (486590)
10-22-2008 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Straggler
10-22-2008 6:42 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Straggler writes:

We know the universe exists.
We do not know that a creator exists

Does assuming that which we do not even know exists was the first uncaused rather than that which we know does exist was the first uncaused make any sense?

On what basis?

On the basis, that somewhere down the line of creational regress, there will be something that is not bound by time(which is somewhat different to being eternal).
We don't even know what we are and you are asking why we don't know what the creator is. It's a complete miracle we know ANYTHING at all, considering what we truly are.

Agobot writes:

Evidence? The little speck of energy that floats into an ocean of energy that it calls an universe wants evidence for the source of the energy? It almost sounds romantic. I wish we could establish a connection with the creators, i bet what you call science can do that one day.

Straggler writes:

The little speck of energy that answers the other speck has irrationally decided that we need to regress the uncaused one extra layer.

If scientific findings can fool Einstein, S.Hawking, Michio Kaku, etc you can bet they can fool me too. That's all there is to human logic and understanding, it can be wrong. I just don't believe in that 1:10^2998 chance that would be necessary for the universe to be what it is. And even then there are things that even 1:10^infinity chance would not explain, i am not buying that theory, it's way too wild and my imagination is obviously lacking the capacity to picture infinities in every possible direction.

Do you believe in infinite number of infinities? Is that what keeps an atheist's faith alive?

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"

-Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2008 6:42 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2008 1:07 PM Agobot has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 123 of 185 (486607)
10-23-2008 4:43 AM


I can't let go of those physical laws and constants magically arising from the singularity, this is just a too great paradox to swallow. Here is what i've just come across from renowned physicist Michio Kaku on this matter:

Dr. Kaku, what is your opinion on science and religion? Are the two in opposition or can there be harmony?

"They can be in harmony, but only if rational people on both sides engage in honest debate. Einstein believed in two types of Gods, for example. He did not believe in a personal God, or a God of intervention. He did not believe that God answered our prayers. But he did believe that there was a God of Spinoza. This is the God of Harmony. He said we are like children entering a huge library for the first time, not knowing how to read the thousands of books that are beyond our understanding. Many scientists, therefore, might say that they believe in a God of harmony. For example, scientists believe in a Big Bang that started the universe. But then we have to ask what happened before the Big Bang. Then we have to ask where the laws of physics came from. Personally, I think that the laws of physics are the only ones possible, that all other laws are mathematically inconsistent. Thus, God probably had no choice in creating the universe, as Einstein believed."

IMO the creator is not even hiding, it doesn't even want to remain anonymous, we're just headed in the wrong direction - looking for him in thousand year old scripture full of utter nonsense.

As Michio Kaku says - "The Mind of God is Music". The whole universe is an ocean of energy vibrating to an extremely harmonious tune that resembles the harmonious resonance created by a beautiful melody. Peek out at the very distant stars at night while listening to your favourite melody - this is the mind of God, this is how the perception of life, existence and universe is created to the tune of the creator.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

""Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 124 of 185 (486609)
10-23-2008 5:43 AM


If i had to speculate about the purpose of our existence, it would be about becoming oneness with God. One day, if we survive to that day, and we reach our full potential(i.e. know everyhthing there is to know about the universe and our existence), we will become baby gods of our universe and maybe even escape its inevitable death by transcending into a new state of existence and becoming oneness with God.
We are still nothing but a tiny manifestation of God, one day I believe we will be ONE altogether. This, I believe, is the grand and magnificient purpose of the universe.

First RNA --> Single cell organism --> Multicellular organism --> Fish --> Reptile --> Mammal --> Ape --> Hominid --> Homo sapiens --> Superhuman(close to civilisation 3* as proposed by Michio Kaku) --> God (Oneness with God)

This is my "religion" and maybe i'll one day make it an official religion with followers who are not blinded by faith in "holy" books.

CIVILISATION 3* - http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/michio-kaku-on.html

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 125 of 185 (486611)
10-23-2008 6:20 AM


This is what Stephen Hawking said about the physical laws and constants miracle(speaking on the equation that he hopes to find that describes the universe):

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"
~Stephen Hawking

I hope some of the smart die-hard atheists will try and explain to him what breathes fire into those equations and become world famous.

IMO atheism is a joke, it's a belief system based on total disregard towards reality and logic.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 11:23 AM Agobot has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 126 of 185 (486645)
10-23-2008 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Agobot
10-23-2008 6:20 AM


Atheism
IMO atheism is a joke, it's a belief system based on total disregard towards reality and logic.

Atheism is not a belief system; it a non-belief system.

Atheists find insufficient evidence to believe in the various tribal idols and demons, whether they be yours or anyone else's.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 6:20 AM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 11:46 AM Coyote has responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 127 of 185 (486647)
10-23-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Coyote
10-23-2008 11:23 AM


Re: Atheism
Coyote writes:

Atheism is not a belief system; it a non-belief system.

Atheists find insufficient evidence to believe in the various tribal idols and demons, whether they be yours or anyone else's.

What you are describing is an agnostic. An atheist believes there is no creator, you have to close your eyes and stop thinking to embrace atheism. It takes quite a dose of belief to be so sure there is no creator.

You can trump this belief system quite easily in multiple ways - an atheist can't even explain why 2+2 equals 4. Why did 2+2 equal 4 ten billion years ago? Why does it now and why will it 2 billion years from now? Why is it so all encompassing as to be valid here on Earth and valid on Alpha Centauri? What makes this possible?

Why doesn't 2+2 equal 5 from time to time? Because there would be no universe and no life, the universe is based on order and laws that can be described mathematically. Where did this law that prohibts 2+2 to equal 5 come from?

Ask an atheist. They live in a dream land, maybe they'll come up with a fancy answer.

"2+2=4" this is the universe that obeys the laws of the creator.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 11:23 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 12:15 PM Agobot has responded
 Message 135 by 1.61803, posted 10-23-2008 3:46 PM Agobot has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 128 of 185 (486650)
10-23-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Agobot
10-23-2008 11:46 AM


Re: Atheism
You can trump this belief system quite easily in multiple ways - an atheist can't even explain why 2+2 equals 4. Why did 2+2 equal 4 ten billion years ago? Why does it now and why will it 2 billion years from now? Why is it so all encompassing as to be valid here on Earth and valid on Alpha Centauri? What makes this possible?

Why doesn't 2+2 equal 5 from time to time? Because there would be no universe and no life, the universe is based on order and laws that can be described mathematically. Where did this law that prohibts 2+2 to equal 5 come from?

Ask an atheist. They live in a dream land, maybe they'll come up with a fancy answer.

"2+2=4" this is the universe that obeys the laws of the creator.

Nonsense.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 11:46 AM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 12:31 PM Coyote has responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 129 of 185 (486653)
10-23-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Coyote
10-23-2008 12:15 PM


Re: Atheism
Coyote writes:

Nonsense.

It hurts your feelings but the universe's existence is based on laws and rules and they can be described logically(there is inherent intellect that we can understand). This made Einstein say:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible"

BTW nonsense is the belief in miracles as well as the belief that your interpretation of the current scientific level of knowledge states that there is no god.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 12:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Huntard, posted 10-23-2008 12:49 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 132 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 1:21 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 10-23-2008 4:50 PM Agobot has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 130 of 185 (486656)
10-23-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Agobot
10-23-2008 12:31 PM


Re: Atheism
It hurts your feelings but the universe's existence is based on laws and rules and they can be described logically(there is inherent intellect that we can understand). This made Einstein say:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible"

BTW nonsense is the belief in miracles as well as the belief that your interpretation of the current scientific level of knowledge states that there is no god.


Agobot, stop using the argument from authority.

And it doesn't hurt my feelings that the universe is based on a set of laws. The current scientific knowledge DOES NOT state there is no god.

Edited by Huntard, : Spellings


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 12:31 PM Agobot has not yet responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 131 of 185 (486661)
10-23-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Huntard
10-22-2008 12:37 PM


The Difference between Design and Designoid
Huntard writes:

Breaking a promise for a good reason is OK in my book, I'll check out your link, I will however not debate it here, since it's kinda against the forum rules.

Ok, then. Just this one. I promise I won't reply anymore...unless you TEMPT me again :D

Check this article: IsThere Scientific Evidence for Existence of God?

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

This guy just outdid me! I was just trying to prove there is Purpose of the exact distance, the condition on earth, etc blah... blah.

In so many words--mostly technical--he offers proof of Existence of God and why Universe is designed. IMO, he differentiated "designoid", as in that JFK shadow in a mountain in Hawaii ( sounds your pothole, eh) and "designed" ( the Mt Rushmore, thingy).

Here is a portion of his treatise if you kinda lazy to go over the 26 pages of discussion.

Dr. W. Bradley writes:

To summarize, for life to exist, we need an orderly (and by implication, intelligible) universe. Order at many different levels is required. For instance, to have planets that circle their stars, we need Newtonian mechanics operating in a three-dimensional universe. For there to be multiple stable elements of the periodic table to provide a sufficient variety of atomic "building blocks" for life, we need atomic structure to be constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics. We further need the orderliness in chemical reactions that is the consequence of Boltzmann's equation for the second law of thermodynamics. And for an energy source like the sun to transfer its life-giving energy to a habitat like Earth, we require the laws of electromagnetic radiation that Maxwell described.
Our universe is indeed orderly, and in precisely the way necessary for it to serve as a suitable habitat for life. The wonderful internal ordering of the cosmos is matched only by its extraordinary economy. Each one of the fundamental laws of nature is essential to life itself. A universe lacking any of the laws shown in Table 1 would almost certainly be a universe without life. Many modern scientists, like the mathematicians centuries before them, have been awestruck by the evidence for intelligent design implicit in nature's mathematical harmony and the internal consistency of the laws of nature. Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies declares:
All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are....The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose include us

"

Yes, Huntard and I included. Common, friend, capitulate... so I can give you my blessing.

Pls. don't point out "argument from authority" or something. Courts do that. You and I do that, although may be unconsciously, for where did we get our "knowledge" of things but from authorities like teachers, etc?

Right, Agobot ?

Common, Huntard, say: P3 is valid! Message 35

Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Edited by Doubting Too, : So Huntard will not try to falsify P3 of message # 35. :=)

Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 12:37 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Huntard, posted 10-23-2008 1:46 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 132 of 185 (486662)
10-23-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Agobot
10-23-2008 12:31 PM


Re: Atheism
It hurts your feelings but the universe's existence is based on laws and rules and they can be described logically(there is inherent intellect that we can understand).

    A Man Said to the Universe

    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However," replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."

    Stephen Crane (1871-1900)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 12:31 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 133 of 185 (486664)
10-23-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by NOT JULIUS
10-23-2008 1:16 PM


Re: The Difference between Design and Designoid
Doubting Too writes:

Ok, then. Just this one. I promise I won't reply anymore...unless you TEMPT me again :=) ( How do I get that smiley thingy?)


Alright, let's see if I can then :P (to get that smiley thingy, simply leave out the = it should then look like this :) )

Check this article: IsThere Scientific Evidence for Existence of God?

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

This guy just outdid me! I was just trying to prove there is Purpose of the exact distance, the condition on earth, etc blah... blah.

In so many words--mostly technical--he offers proof of design. IMO, he differentiated "designoid", as in that JFK shadow in a mountain in Hawaii ( sounds your pothole, eh) and "designed" ( the Mt Rushmore, thingy).

Here is a portion of his treatise if you kinda lazy to go over the 26 pages of discussion.


As I said before I won't debate links, it's against the forum rules. I will comment on the piece of text you quoted though.

Dr. W. Bradley writes:

To summarize, for life to exist, we need an orderly (and by implication, intelligible) universe. Order at many different levels is required.


Problem right there. How does he know that? He could be very wrong, we only have one universe to study. In a different universe, chaotic perhaps, how is he to know there could not be life?

For instance, to have planets that circle their stars, we need Newtonian mechanics operating in a three-dimensional universe.

Newton's been outdone by Einstein some 100 years ago.

For there to be multiple stable elements of the periodic table to provide a sufficient variety of atomic "building blocks" for life, we need atomic structure to be constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics.

In a different universe, the building blocks for life could very well be different to ours.

We further need the orderliness in chemical reactions that is the consequence of Boltzmann's equation for the second law of thermodynamics.

In a different universe there might very well be different laws of thermodynamics.

And for an energy source like the sun to transfer its life-giving energy to a habitat like Earth, we require the laws of electromagnetic radiation that Maxwell described.

In a different universe...etc. Are we beginning to see a pattern yet?

Our universe is indeed orderly, and in precisely the way necessary for it to serve as a suitable habitat for life.

That's another mistake, which I think was pointed out in the beginning of this thread. Life on Earth fits so perfectly because it evolved to fit the conditions of the Earth, not the other way around.

The wonderful internal ordering of the cosmos is matched only by its extraordinary economy. Each one of the fundamental laws of nature is essential to life itself.

To this my response is the same as to the very first line I quoted:

How does he know that? He could be very wrong, we only have one universe to study. In a different universe, chaotic perhaps, how is he to know there could not be life?

A universe lacking any of the laws shown in Table 1 would almost certainly be a universe without life.

Again, how does he know?

Many modern scientists, like the mathematicians centuries before them, have been awestruck by the evidence for intelligent design implicit in nature's mathematical harmony and the internal consistency of the laws of nature.

And a great many more say there is no such evidence AT ALL.

Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies writes:

All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws.


Of course, they evolved to fit those rules.

It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are.

Bolding mine.

Again, he BELIEVES this. As a matter of fact, the way this quote is put, it makes me think he is actually going to say: "But of course, that is not the case".

The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.

Again, bolding mine.

This sounds again like he is going to say: "But of course, that is not the case".

If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose include us

Yes, IF it is the product of design. However NOWHERE have they shown this to be the case.

Doubting Too writes:

Yes, Huntard and I included. Common, friend, capitulate... so I can give you my blessing.

Pls. don't point out "argument by authority" or something. Courts do that. You and I do that, although may be unconsciously, for where did we get our "knowledge" of things but from authorities like teachers, etc?

Common, say: P3 is valid! Message 35


I think I have avoided telling you the authority thingy. I think however, that you'll find me unconvinced after reading my comments. Your blessings though, are always welcome. :)

Edited by Huntard, : edited in link to message 35


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 1:16 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 2:07 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 134 of 185 (486667)
10-23-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Huntard
10-23-2008 1:46 PM


Re: The Difference between Design and Designoid
Huntard writes:

I think I have avoided telling you the authority thingy. I think however, that you'll find me unconvinced after reading my comments. Your blessings though, are always welcome

Ok, since you won't agree, I'll just give you a little blessing...about vegetables. Mix cabbage (red), carrots, ginger, and (some sweetener, and H2O in an "osterizer". You'll find a flavorful and nutritious vegetable juice. It's a DESIGNER juice! Good for your health too! ;)

But, if you agree that P3 is valid Message 35 I'll give you a big blessing. I'll share with you the secrets of reducing the ODDS against Losing in a lottery. I just found a quirky combination of numbers that won't "combine". If you eliminate those combinations you increase your chances. :D

Edited by Doubting Too, : To bribe Huntard..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Huntard, posted 10-23-2008 1:46 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2729
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 135 of 185 (486680)
10-23-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Agobot
10-23-2008 11:46 AM


Re: Atheism
quote:
Because there would be no universe and no life, the universe is based on order and laws that can be described mathematically. Where did this law that prohibts 2+2 to equal 5 come from?

Ask an atheist. They live in a dream land, maybe they'll come up with a fancy answer.

"2+2=4" this is the universe that obeys the laws of the creator.


Virtual particles appearing and the disappearing from a vaccum constitute "something from nothing." There is nothing, and then something. Is it created? Or does it happen because empty space is not really empty after all? 2+2=5 is nonsense, and yet theist expect others to believe that 1+1+1=1 and not the sum of 3. They call this The Trinity. Show me a universe where 1+1+1=1 and I will show you a unverse where 2+2=5. :D

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 11:46 AM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Agobot, posted 10-23-2008 8:50 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017