Afterlife….How About For You?

[ding]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?

It doesn't exist. So it doesn't come from anywhere.

Really?

So you believe what we can''t see, and measure doesn't exist?

I think I'll side with the tens of thousands of physicists, astro physicists and other scientists that say otherwise.

Only when a moron claims it makes up 95% of the universe.

So the people who won the Nobel Prize for postulating the existence of something else in the universe were morons but you aren't a thick headed inflexible thinker

Nobel Prize – Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity

Posts about Nobel Prize written by darkmatterdarkenergy

darkmatterdarkenergy.com

only if I claimed that 95% of something was made up of something no one had ever seen or measured or captured or could explain where it came from or how it got there.

Then you would be correct.

So you know more than the 2011 Nobel Prize winners

SUURRRRRRRE

Just you.

Keep telling yourself that

Keep reminding me.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

OK where did I say they did?

You really like to lie about what I have said don't you?

But don';t forget you denied that what we call dark matter and dark energy even existed didn't you?

 

[Newtonian]

They can literally account for all the matter in the universe using microwave radiation and sub atomic particle symmetry.

While Eddington long ago calculated that our visible universe contains about 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this does not take into account that we cannot observe and study beyond our visibility horizon, nor did it take into account dark energy and dark matter.

But you are correct that scientists have measured the approximate matter and energy, and dark matter and dark energy in our universe - our literature has reported on this:

A Universe Full of Surprises — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"In 1998, researchers analyzing light from a special kind of supernova, or exploding star, found evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating!* At first, the scientists were skeptical, but evidence soon mounted. Naturally, they wanted to know what form of energy was causing the accelerating expansion. For one thing, it seemed to be working in opposition to gravity; and for another, it was not predicted by present theories. Appropriately, this mysterious form of energy has been named dark energy, and it may make up nearly 75 percent of the universe!...

Consider this: According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns—dark matter and dark energy—appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!"

Footnote:

"The exploding stars are called type 1a supernovas, and they may shine as brightly as a billion suns for a short time. Astronomers use these supernovas as a standard for measurement."

Note: the article was from 11 years ago in 2009.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

OK where did I say they did?

You really like to lie about what I have said don't you?

But don';t forget you denied that what we call dark matter and dark energy even existed didn't you?

You brought up dark matter and dark energy to argue we can’t know how the universe began or if it even began. That was your implication. That was your red herring.

All because the universe being created from nothing goes against your belief that there is no God.

 

[Newtonian]

7. If the earlier text of the Judeo-Christian faith meant to endorse an afterlife, one of reward and/or punishments, wouldn’t there be a direct statement of the existence of an afterlife???



Prager has a truly clever analysis of why there isn’t.

If the Bible made a definite statement that there is such a judgment it would obviate the central gift to mankind: free will.

Free will and the intelligence to judge our actions are left to the individual. Perhaps that is why evil continues to exist….an individual doesn’t know for a fact that they will be held responsible for their actions. But it they did.....

“If people knew that if they acted badly in this world they would be immediately punished, there would no longer be free will (even career criminals don’t commit crimes in the presence of police).” Prager




So….not knowing, not being certain of an afterlife, demands faith and self-discipline…and due diligence.

Belief in God and an afterlife makes it far easier to be a good person, a righteous person......but, one could be a pagan conform to the same degree.....it simply requires a higher degree of self discipline.

Ah, back when this thread was on topic!

Moses wrote both the Torah/Pentateuch/Genesis though Deuteronomy and the book of Job (and the 90th Psalm). Job was initially uncertain of an afterlife - but then he concluded God would have a yearning for the work of his hands and resurrect (call him) back to life:

Job 14:12-15
Man* also has to lie down and does not get up.+
Until heaven is no more they will not wake up,+
Nor will they be aroused from their sleep.*+
13 O that in Sheʹol* you would conceal me,+
That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back,
That you would set a time limit+ for me and remember me!+
14 If an able-bodied man* dies can he live again?+
All the days of my compulsory service I shall wait,+
Until my relief comes.+
15 You will call, and I myself shall answer you.+
For the work of your hands you will have a yearning.

 

[ding]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

OK where did I say they did?

You really like to lie about what I have said don't you?

But don';t forget you denied that what we call dark matter and dark energy even existed didn't you?

You brought up dark matter and dark energy to argue we can’t know how the universe began or if it even began. That was your implication. That was your red herring.

All because the universe being created from nothing goes against your belief that there is no God.

I said if we can't understand 95% of the universe how do we expect to understand how it began

I never said what happened at the beginning of the universe.

You on the other hand said that what we call dark matter doesn't exist

And no nothing I said contradicts my belief that there is no god.

The point is we do not really know how the universe began and we really only understand about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

I can admit when I do not know something and do not have to attribute it to some god.

One very real possibility is that we may never be able to understand the universe in its entirety because we are incapable just like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra.

So from now on let's agree that if you want to tell me what I said that you use the quote function and I'll do the same.

 

[Blues Man]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

OK where did I say they did?

You really like to lie about what I have said don't you?

But don';t forget you denied that what we call dark matter and dark energy even existed didn't you?

You brought up dark matter and dark energy to argue we can’t know how the universe began or if it even began. That was your implication. That was your red herring.

All because the universe being created from nothing goes against your belief that there is no God.

I said if we can't understand 95% of the universe how do we expect to understand how it began

I never said what happened at the beginning of the universe.

You on the other hand said that what we call dark matter doesn't exist

And no nothing I said contradicts my belief that there is no god.

The point is we do not really know how the universe began and we really only understand about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

I can admit when I do not know something and do not have to attribute it to some god.

One very real possibility is that we may never be able to understand the universe in its entirety because we are incapable just like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra.

So from now on let's agree that if you want to tell me what I said that you use the quote function and I'll do the same.

Which is a stupid statement because it is a red herring. Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, QM, Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations is how we can understand how the universe began.

 

[ding]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

OK where did I say they did?

You really like to lie about what I have said don't you?

But don';t forget you denied that what we call dark matter and dark energy even existed didn't you?

You brought up dark matter and dark energy to argue we can’t know how the universe began or if it even began. That was your implication. That was your red herring.

All because the universe being created from nothing goes against your belief that there is no God.

I said if we can't understand 95% of the universe how do we expect to understand how it began

I never said what happened at the beginning of the universe.

You on the other hand said that what we call dark matter doesn't exist

And no nothing I said contradicts my belief that there is no god.

The point is we do not really know how the universe began and we really only understand about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

I can admit when I do not know something and do not have to attribute it to some god.

One very real possibility is that we may never be able to understand the universe in its entirety because we are incapable just like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra.

So from now on let's agree that if you want to tell me what I said that you use the quote function and I'll do the same.

Which is a stupid statement because it is a red herring. Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, QM, Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations is how we can understand how the universe began.

No it's not a stupid question unless you deny that there is something else out there that we do not understand.

It doesn't matter what we call it we can observe its effects in the universe therefore what we call dark matter and dark energy are part of this universe therefore when this universe came into being so did dark energy and dark matter which for all we know may not be matter or energy as we understand them. But you think that the 2011 Nobel Prize winners are wrong because you know more than they do right?

And Einstein's field equations are incomplete since he never did unify gravity with the other forces even though it's what he spent the later part of his life trying to and as Hawking said, in order to understand the creation of the universe we also must integrate quantum theory and general relativity.

 

[Blues Man]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

Not at all

All I said was we don't know HOW it was created.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

OK where did I say they did?

You really like to lie about what I have said don't you?

But don';t forget you denied that what we call dark matter and dark energy even existed didn't you?

You brought up dark matter and dark energy to argue we can’t know how the universe began or if it even began. That was your implication. That was your red herring.

All because the universe being created from nothing goes against your belief that there is no God.

I said if we can't understand 95% of the universe how do we expect to understand how it began

I never said what happened at the beginning of the universe.

You on the other hand said that what we call dark matter doesn't exist

And no nothing I said contradicts my belief that there is no god.

The point is we do not really know how the universe began and we really only understand about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

I can admit when I do not know something and do not have to attribute it to some god.

One very real possibility is that we may never be able to understand the universe in its entirety because we are incapable just like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra.

So from now on let's agree that if you want to tell me what I said that you use the quote function and I'll do the same.

Which is a stupid statement because it is a red herring. Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, QM, Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations is how we can understand how the universe began.

No it's not a stupid question unless you deny that there is something else out there that we do not understand.

It doesn't matter what we call it we can observe its effects in the universe therefore what we call dark matter and dark energy are part of this universe therefore when this universe came into being so did dark energy and dark matter which for all we know may not be matter or energy as we understand them. But you think that the 2011 Nobel Prize winners are wrong because you know more than they do right?

And Einstein's field equations are incomplete since he never did unify gravity with the other forces even though it's what he spent the later part of his life trying to and as Hawking said, in order to understand the creation of the universe we also must integrate quantum theory and general relativity.

based on that logic we would have to proceed through life not accepting anything we know.

 

[ding]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

Not at all

All I said was we don't know HOW it was created.

Again, we have ample evidence to know.

 

[Blues Man]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

Not at all

All I said was we don't know HOW it was created.

Again, we have ample evidence to know.

All we know is the after effects after the moment of origin and we still don't understand what 95% of the universe is made of

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

Still can't admit you lied about what I said so now you want to play 20 questions

So you don't know?

It was created from nothing. We know this through inspection using the SLoT.

And you still have yet to prove your claim that I said the universe had no beginning.

You think you know everything about the universe when our most esteemed physicists say otherwise.

I’m just glad you agree that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

That wasn’t so hard.

I never denied it asswipe.

You're the one who lied about what I said.

But then again you're also the one who thinks nobel prize winners are morons

Relax, bro. Take it easy. I understand your being a science denier would put you on edge. It would me too.

Like I said, I am happy you acknowledge the universe began. It’s a start.

You say Nobel Prize winners are morons and you call me a science denier.

IDGAf if you're happy or not as your feelings have nothing to do with anything.

No. I say you are a moron for thinking dark matter and dark energy have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

OK where did I say they did?

You really like to lie about what I have said don't you?

But don';t forget you denied that what we call dark matter and dark energy even existed didn't you?

You brought up dark matter and dark energy to argue we can’t know how the universe began or if it even began. That was your implication. That was your red herring.

All because the universe being created from nothing goes against your belief that there is no God.

I said if we can't understand 95% of the universe how do we expect to understand how it began

I never said what happened at the beginning of the universe.

You on the other hand said that what we call dark matter doesn't exist

And no nothing I said contradicts my belief that there is no god.

The point is we do not really know how the universe began and we really only understand about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

I can admit when I do not know something and do not have to attribute it to some god.

One very real possibility is that we may never be able to understand the universe in its entirety because we are incapable just like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra.

So from now on let's agree that if you want to tell me what I said that you use the quote function and I'll do the same.

Which is a stupid statement because it is a red herring. Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, QM, Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations is how we can understand how the universe began.

No it's not a stupid question unless you deny that there is something else out there that we do not understand.

It doesn't matter what we call it we can observe its effects in the universe therefore what we call dark matter and dark energy are part of this universe therefore when this universe came into being so did dark energy and dark matter which for all we know may not be matter or energy as we understand them. But you think that the 2011 Nobel Prize winners are wrong because you know more than they do right?

And Einstein's field equations are incomplete since he never did unify gravity with the other forces even though it's what he spent the later part of his life trying to and as Hawking said, in order to understand the creation of the universe we also must integrate quantum theory and general relativity.

based on that logic we would have to proceed through life not accepting anything we know.

Or at least not be so arrogant as to think we know everything.

 

[tycho1572]

When I was younger, I went through an experience that has me convinced that unexplainable things do happen. It was an experience I’ve posted about in the past.
It was also an experience I can recall like it happened yesterday.

Inexplicable does not equal supernatural

Would you describe an out of body experience as being supernatural?

 

[Blues Man]

When I was younger, I went through an experience that has me convinced that unexplainable things do happen. It was an experience I’ve posted about in the past.
It was also an experience I can recall like it happened yesterday.

Inexplicable does not equal supernatural

Would you describe an out of body experience as being supernatural?

No because you are never out of your body.

 

[tycho1572]

When I was younger, I went through an experience that has me convinced that unexplainable things do happen. It was an experience I’ve posted about in the past.
It was also an experience I can recall like it happened yesterday.

Inexplicable does not equal supernatural

Would you describe an out of body experience as being supernatural?

No because you are never out of your body.

It's an unexplainable experience that's very real.