Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[Taz]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

 

[Taz]

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Why don't you believe the pertinent science? From an article I wrote:

There are (1) no conservation laws that forbid the creation of a universe out of nothing (no space, time, matter or energy), and that (2) in quantum mechanics whatever is not forbidden by conservation laws is possible. Not only does this incontrovertibly evince that the simultaneity of a timeless cause and the beginning of time (effect) is readily possible, but that the laws of physics that describe the development of the universe are the very same that expound the process of the creation of the universe. In other words, the laws of physics are fundamental and precede the existence of the universe.​

HOLY SUPPOSITIONS BATMAN!

Science can't see back to the BB, look it up. Because as a pretend scientist, you don't even know that yet.

 

[ding]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

 

[ding]

I think there is a 1-800 hotline for science deniers, Taz.

 

[Taz]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

 

[Ringtone]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

 

[Ringtone]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

You're not denying science are you, Taz?

Perhaps what's been throwing you is your misunderstanding of what the construct creatio ex nihilo means. It does not mean that the Universe (physical world) popped into existence from an ontological nothingness without a cause. Absurdity! Rather, it simply means that the Universe (physical world) was created from nothing, i.e., from no previously existing physical substance.

That's all.

 

[Ringtone]

HOLY SUPPOSITIONS BATMAN!

Science can't see back to the BB, look it up. Because as a pretend scientist, you don't even know that yet.

Can't see back to?! Look it up?!

The only pretender here is you.

The CMB is the cosmological snapshot of the Big Band. The Big Bang is precisely the point back to which we may confidently trace the history of the Universe. It's before the Big Bang state, i.e., before cosmic inflation that things get hazy . . . because (1) we don't know precisely how cosmic inflation was caused and (2) the calculi of general relativity ultimately yield a singularity (an infinite point of density).

I don't need to look it up.

Excerpt from an article I WROTE:

Learned theist apologists . . . are well-aware of the "cosmic problems" with the Big Bang model, albeit, relative to Guth's transitional phase of cosmic inflation per the break in the symmetry of the grand unification. These problems are (1) the magnetic monopole problem, (2) the flatness problem, and (3) the horizon problem. But we're confident that the first principles of ontology and epistemology will continue to hold whether the universe began as an "infinite point of density" or as a rapid, exponential expansion of space (cosmic inflation) driven by quantum fluctuations in the underlying field, which set up the dense, uniform state of high-energy matter (quark-gluon plasma) and radiation—namely, the Big Bang state. The explanatory power of the Big Bang model goes to the cogency of its description of the development of the universe beginning at the inflationary epoch, followed by the quark epoch, then, eventually, onto primordial nucleosynthesis and stellar nucleosynthesis in the expanding universe.​

​

For those who may still be confused about the actual sequence of events in the current understanding of the Big Bang scenario. . . .​

​

The ostensible singularity of the original model is a relic of the calculi of general relativity sans the factor of cosmic inflation. The widely disseminated notion of a singularity and graphs depicting the same are arguably dated, but one should not be too dogmatic about this given that an initial moment of cosmic inflation being the beginning of our universe instead of a point of infinite density ultimately goes to a theoretical gap. The Big Bang state, which we know emerged for sure, requires cosmic inflation. Extrapolating backwards from the current state of our expanding universe—as space shrinks, as the material of the universe is squeezed into an ever smaller volume—the known laws of physics, specifically, the calculi of general relativity, yield a singularity just before a period of high-density and -heat (i.e., the period of the Big Bang). In other words, according to inflationary theory, our universe didn't begin as an arbitrary bang of matter and energy. Rather, all the energy of the universe was bound up in the fabric of space itself. This vacuum energy caused the universe to expand at a rapid, exponential rate and stretched the quantum fluctuations of the underlying field across the early universe, creating comparatively near-uniform regions of energy density. After the inflationary epoch, the early universe cooled enough for most of this energy to convert into a hot, dense state of matter and radiation. Hence, "the explosion" was actually cosmic inflation, which put the "bang" in the Big Bang that was actually just a big conversion of energy.​

​

The reason you still routinely encounter papers written by scientists and articles written by science journalists that refer to cosmic inflation as something that happened after the Big Bang is because we still don't have a scientifically demonstrable explanation for what caused inflation in the first place. Cosmic inflation beautifully harmonizes with the Big Bang model and, thusly, makes it whole. But cosmic inflation does not account for itself, and, once again, the calculi of general relativity extrapolate backwards to a singularity, where the known laws of physics breakdown. Bottom line: in lieu of a demonstrable scientific explanation for what actually lit the fuse in the first place, scientists are hedging their bets. The desire to avoid dogmatism in this wise is commendable, but it nevertheless serves to confuse the theoretical order of things in the minds of many regarding the prevailing synthesis of inflationary theory and the Big Bang model.​

 

[ding]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

Big Bang: ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when 1,000,000,000 anti matter particles per 1,000,000,001 matter particles popped into existence from nothing. For every 1 matter particle in existence today there were 1,000,000,000 matter / anti matter annihilations releasing epic proportions of energy and propelling the remaining matter particles outward. The cosmic background radiation that we can "see" and measure are the remnants of those annihilations.

Taz: We can't see that far back.

 

[ding]

Gee, Taz tell us how the big bang happened.

 

[ding]

I don't care who you are... that right there is funny.

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

 

[Taz]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

You're not denying science are you, Taz?

Perhaps what's been throwing you is your misunderstanding of what the construct creatio ex nihilo means. It does not mean that the Universe (physical world) popped into existence from an ontological nothingness without a cause. Absurdity! Rather, it simply means that the Universe (physical world) was created from nothing, i.e., from no previously existing physical substance.

That's all.

We don't know that as we can't see all the way back tho the BB. You can speculate all you want, and you might even have it right, but we can't say for a fact yet what happened at the BB.

 

[Taz]

HOLY SUPPOSITIONS BATMAN!

Science can't see back to the BB, look it up. Because as a pretend scientist, you don't even know that yet.

Can't see back to?! Look it up?!

The only pretender here is you.

The CMB is the cosmological snapshot of the Big Band. The Big Bang is precisely the point back to which we may confidently trace the history of the Universe. It's before the Big Bang state, i.e., before cosmic inflation that things get hazy . . . because (1) we don't know precisely how cosmic inflation was caused and (2) the calculi of general relativity ultimately yield a singularity (an infinite point of density).

I don't need to look it up.

Excerpt from an article I WROTE:

Learned theist apologists . . . are well-aware of the "cosmic problems" with the Big Bang model, albeit, relative to Guth's transitional phase of cosmic inflation per the break in the symmetry of the grand unification. These problems are (1) the magnetic monopole problem, (2) the flatness problem, and (3) the horizon problem. But we're confident that the first principles of ontology and epistemology will continue to hold whether the universe began as an "infinite point of density" or as a rapid, exponential expansion of space (cosmic inflation) driven by quantum fluctuations in the underlying field, which set up the dense, uniform state of high-energy matter (quark-gluon plasma) and radiation—namely, the Big Bang state. The explanatory power of the Big Bang model goes to the cogency of its description of the development of the universe beginning at the inflationary epoch, followed by the quark epoch, then, eventually, onto primordial nucleosynthesis and stellar nucleosynthesis in the expanding universe.​

​

For those who may still be confused about the actual sequence of events in the current understanding of the Big Bang scenario. . . .​

​

The ostensible singularity of the original model is a relic of the calculi of general relativity sans the factor of cosmic inflation. The widely disseminated notion of a singularity and graphs depicting the same are arguably dated, but one should not be too dogmatic about this given that an initial moment of cosmic inflation being the beginning of our universe instead of a point of infinite density ultimately goes to a theoretical gap. The Big Bang state, which we know emerged for sure, requires cosmic inflation. Extrapolating backwards from the current state of our expanding universe—as space shrinks, as the material of the universe is squeezed into an ever smaller volume—the known laws of physics, specifically, the calculi of general relativity, yield a singularity just before a period of high-density and -heat (i.e., the period of the Big Bang). In other words, according to inflationary theory, our universe didn't begin as an arbitrary bang of matter and energy. Rather, all the energy of the universe was bound up in the fabric of space itself. This vacuum energy caused the universe to expand at a rapid, exponential rate and stretched the quantum fluctuations of the underlying field across the early universe, creating comparatively near-uniform regions of energy density. After the inflationary epoch, the early universe cooled enough for most of this energy to convert into a hot, dense state of matter and radiation. Hence, "the explosion" was actually cosmic inflation, which put the "bang" in the Big Bang that was actually just a big conversion of energy.​

​

The reason you still routinely encounter papers written by scientists and articles written by science journalists that refer to cosmic inflation as something that happened after the Big Bang is because we still don't have a scientifically demonstrable explanation for what caused inflation in the first place. Cosmic inflation beautifully harmonizes with the Big Bang model and, thusly, makes it whole. But cosmic inflation does not account for itself, and, once again, the calculi of general relativity extrapolate backwards to a singularity, where the known laws of physics breakdown. Bottom line: in lieu of a demonstrable scientific explanation for what actually lit the fuse in the first place, scientists are hedging their bets. The desire to avoid dogmatism in this wise is commendable, but it nevertheless serves to confuse the theoretical order of things in the minds of many regarding the prevailing synthesis of inflationary theory and the Big Bang model.​

The CMB is the result on the BB. The BB we can't see yet. Look THAT up. That's why they call it the BIG BANG THEORY!!!

 

[Taz]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

Big Bang: ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when 1,000,000,000 anti matter particles per 1,000,000,001 matter particles popped into existence from nothing. For every 1 matter particle in existence today there were 1,000,000,000 matter / anti matter annihilations releasing epic proportions of energy and propelling the remaining matter particles outward. The cosmic background radiation that we can "see" and measure are the remnants of those annihilations.

Taz: We can't see that far back.

View attachment 468562

Then it should be easy to link to a telescope shot of the BB itself. You can't? DUH!

 

[Taz]

Gee, Taz tell us how the big bang happened.

It just goes over your head, you're too locked in to your anti-science religious dogma. I bet you're big into comic books as well.

 

[ding]

Gee, Taz tell us how the big bang happened.

It just goes over your head, you're too locked in to your anti-science religious dogma. I bet you're big into comic books as well.

I'm not the one denying the science behind the big bang, taz. That would be you.

 

[ding]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

Big Bang: ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when 1,000,000,000 anti matter particles per 1,000,000,001 matter particles popped into existence from nothing. For every 1 matter particle in existence today there were 1,000,000,000 matter / anti matter annihilations releasing epic proportions of energy and propelling the remaining matter particles outward. The cosmic background radiation that we can "see" and measure are the remnants of those annihilations.

Taz: We can't see that far back.

View attachment 468562

Then it should be easy to link to a telescope shot of the BB itself. You can't? DUH!

 

[Taz]

Gee, Taz tell us how the big bang happened.

It just goes over your head, you're too locked in to your anti-science religious dogma. I bet you're big into comic books as well.

I'm not the one denying the science behind the big bang, taz. That would be you.

You're jumping on a theory that isn't yet fact. And quite frankly, doesn't sound very plausible, because you'd need an invisible magician to make that happen like that. But hey, you enjoy living in a fantasy world, go for it.

 

[Taz]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

Big Bang: ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when 1,000,000,000 anti matter particles per 1,000,000,001 matter particles popped into existence from nothing. For every 1 matter particle in existence today there were 1,000,000,000 matter / anti matter annihilations releasing epic proportions of energy and propelling the remaining matter particles outward. The cosmic background radiation that we can "see" and measure are the remnants of those annihilations.

Taz: We can't see that far back.

View attachment 468562

Then it should be easy to link to a telescope shot of the BB itself. You can't? DUH!

View attachment 468768

So you can't link. Got it. Now post the Captain again, we know you want to.