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

[ding]

Try to stay focused, Taz. I'm showing you how they know the universe was created and had a beginning as opposed to existing forever and cycling between a big bang and a big crunch.

Help me help you.

 

[ding]

What would cause a universe which had crunched to expand?

 

[ding]

There are so many reasons why no one seriously considers an infinite acting universe.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

I was raised in the Church of Christ. Few churches are more conservative and fiercely legalistic than the Church of Christ.
I have never in my life heard a sermon about treating people different. Any people. Obviously there was probably mention that homosexuality being a sin, but never - ever about treating them badly.
In fact, often preached about was the actions of Jesus, in which the Pharisees chastised him for consistently meeting/eating with sinners. So, as usual, when leftist are the source of information - the information is false.

 

[Ringtone]

Wtf is this, that Vilenkin guy was exposed as a faker to your other sock, dingbat.

Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin are fakers?!

Borde, also steeped in physics and astronomy, is among the leading mathematicians in the world. Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin are world-class theoretical physicists and cosmologists. Guth is the father of the regnant synthesis of cosmic inflation and Friedman-Lemaitre, and Vilenkin is arguably the world's most productive and influential cosmologist alive.

What in the beep are you talking about? And what is this sock business?

 

[Ringtone]

There are so many reasons why no one seriously considers an infinite acting universe.

Ding, I'm not going through this thread from the time I left and came back. Please see post: Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

What the hell is Taz talking about? Vilenkin a faker?!

 

[ding]

There are so many reasons why no one seriously considers an infinite acting universe.

Ding, I'm not going through this thread from the time I left and came back. Please see post: Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

What the hell is Taz talking about? Vilenkin a faker?!

Among other things. Taz hates the fact that the universe was created because he knows what that means. That is why he won't concede the universe being created. It's pretty funny, really. An atheist denying accepted science, making silly nit picky arguments all to keep from facing the reality that God created the universe.

 

[Ringtone]

Among other things. Taz hates the fact that the universe was created because he knows what that means. That is why he won't concede the universe being created. It's pretty funny, really. An atheist denying accepted science, making silly nit picky arguments all to keep from facing the reality that God created the universe.

(By the way, regent was a typo, of course, should be regnant. Fixed it in the above. )

What I meant: did he actually post some link earlier to some source making that ridiculous claim about these guys, particularly Vilenkin?

 

[Ringtone]

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can see the BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

The universe likely started at some point? Ya think?

A Big Crunch sucked up by a black hole?! A black hole residing outside of some cyclical Big Crunch?! How does that absurdity work? You obviously don't know what a Big Crunch is supposed to be in the first place.

But in any event, because of the gravitational ejection events of violent relaxation and Hawking radiation nothing even remotely close to all the matter in the universe could ever be consumed by black holes in the first place, let alone "a super massive black hole." Sans any intervention, the end of the universe is a heat death.

 

[Hollie]

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can see the BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

The universe likely started at some point? Ya think?

A Big Crunch sucked up by a black hole?! A black hole residing outside of some cyclical Big Crunch?! How does that absurdity work? You obviously don't know what a Big Crunch is supposed to be in the first place.

But in any event, because of the gravitational ejection events of violent relaxation and Hawking radiation nothing even remotely close to all the matter in the universe could ever be consumed by black holes in the first place, let alone "a super massive black hole." Sans any intervention, the end of the universe is a heat death.

Why would you bother with anything Vilenkin has to offer? Per the Tuft’s University website, Vilenkin is described as:
“Alexander Vilenkin
Director, Institute of Cosmology, and
L. and J. Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science”

Oh, my. An “evodelusionist”.

Sans your silly slogans, you’re now sans all credibility.

 

[Taz]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

No, your invisible friend didn't poof everything into existence. No proof for that.

Taz, why are you skipping steps?

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

I've explained why the CMB exists, Taz.

Here's a link which explains it too.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

No, your invisible friend didn't poof everything into existence. No proof for that.

Taz, why are you skipping steps?

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

I've explained why the CMB exists, Taz.

Here's a link which explains it too.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Quote the relevant part from your link, then you add the link.

 

[Taz]

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can see the BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

The universe likely started at some point? Ya think?

A Big Crunch sucked up by a black hole?! A black hole residing outside of some cyclical Big Crunch?! How does that absurdity work? You obviously don't know what a Big Crunch is supposed to be in the first place.

But in any event, because of the gravitational ejection events of violent relaxation and Hawking radiation nothing even remotely close to all the matter in the universe could ever be consumed by black holes in the first place, let alone "a super massive black hole." Sans any intervention, the end of the universe is a heat death.

Sure thing, Nostradamus. Only you know everything about the BB without being able to see it. Go put your other sock on now.

 

[Ringtone]

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

Okay, Taz, since you brought up the Big Crunch hypothesis, let's start with the basics and then systematically survey the alternative models that have been proposed over the years in an attempt to explain the absurdity of an eternally existing universe. . . .

First, absorb the following excerpt from my article:

We may now see the synthesis reduced to its essential integrants: inflationary theory and the Big Bang model.​

​

Inflationary Theory​

​

While it necessarily presupposes certain initial conditions relative to the three major problems listed in the above, the calculi of inflationary theory smoothly correlate with the extant conditions observed in the universe. In other words, while cosmic inflation "resolves these problems" in an ad hoc fashion, it, nevertheless, accounts for the absence of magnetic monopoles in and the flatness of the extant universe, as well as the homogeneity and isotropy of the extant universe, negating the horizon problem. And while Guth initially proposed cosmic inflation in 1980 to fix the standard Big Bang model relative to extant conditions, these conditions have since been additionally affirmed by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Additionally, significant, indirect evidence—not bottomed on ad hoc calculi of initial conditions relative to extant conditions—supports cosmic inflation. For example, the spectral radiance of the CMB features a very distinct pattern (small irregularities of varying sizes) consistent with what would be expected if a uniformly distributed hot gas were effectuated by quantum fluctuations.​

​

Related: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-was-it-like-when-the-universe-was-inflating-f9346f3527d4.​

​

Big Bang Model (State)​

​

The model exquisitely describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state after the rapid, exponential expansion of space, including a wide range of phenomena: chemical diversity and the abundance of vital light elements; large scale, astronomical structures and systems; Hubble's law regarding relative galactic motion; the afterglow of radiation permeating the universe (CMB).​

​

Graphic Chronology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#/media/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg. ​

​

Chronological Chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Tabular_summary. Also consider "Big ​

​

Bang Confirmed Again, This Time By The Universe's First Atoms": https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/11/big-bang-confirmed-again-this-time-by-the-universes-first-atoms/#73d01b9179c2. ​

​

Bottom line: the Big Bang model most certainly does recount an absolute beginning of our universe in the finite past!​

​

To which atheists routinely respond: "scientists are talking about the visible universe."​

​

By this they presumably don't mean to preclude the wider, observable universe of today (approximately 93 billion light years in diameter) or preclude the continuously expanding universe beyond as if the visible universe were something other than our universe. Rather, they're unwittingly alluding to the earliest visible image of the universe, which dates back to the time when it was approximately 380,000 years old and 42 million light years in radius. Technically, the visible universe denotes that of the recombination epoch, the earliest point in cosmological history at which we can look back via the CMB. Before this epoch, the universe was too hot and dense—a sea of opaque plasma containing baryonic matter and electromagnetic radiation—to create the CMB. The universe cooled enough for electrons and primordial atomic nuclei (bounded protons and neutrons) to recombine into neutral atoms. From that point on photons were free to travel, and the universe became increasingly transparent. Immediately following on the heels of cosmic inflation, the initial stage of the Big Bang state is the quark epoch, which is extrapolated backwards from the CMB. The CMB is a snapshot of the final stage of the Big Bang state, which is the recombination epoch.​

​

Cosmic Microwave Background: https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/picture-gallery. https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/387566/1753103/Planck_2018_T_CMB.pdf/bd1c9c9d-db10-1396-61c0-902a7dd63d7b​

​

The referents observable universe and visible universe are often used interchangeably, but for obvious reasons, one should be aware of the technical distinction. In any event, the point the atheist thinks he's ultimately making is that the calculi of the Big Bang model do not necessarily preclude the potentiality of an eternally self-subsistent cosmos of some kind in which the Big Bang only obtains to the beginning of our universe. As we shall see this is nonsense. Our universe may not be the only universe within a multiverse or world ensemble, but all of the evidence refutes a past-eternal cosmos.​

 

[ding]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

No, your invisible friend didn't poof everything into existence. No proof for that.

Taz, why are you skipping steps?

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

I've explained why the CMB exists, Taz.

Here's a link which explains it too.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

No, your invisible friend didn't poof everything into existence. No proof for that.

Taz, why are you skipping steps?

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

I've explained why the CMB exists, Taz.

Here's a link which explains it too.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Quote the relevant part from your link, then you add the link.

Sure thing, here you go.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[Ringtone]

Sure thing, Nostradamus. Only you know everything about the BB without being able to see it. Go put your other sock on now.

ding and I are not the same person.

 

[ding]

I'm going to publish a science coloring book for taz.

 

[ding]

Here's a European Space Agency Website that was specifically designed to explain the Big Bang to people like Taz.

ESA - Space for Kids - The Big Bang

Most astronomers believe the Universe began in a Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. At that time, the entire Universe was inside a bubble that was thousands of times smaller than a pinhead. It was hotter and denser than anything we can imagine.

www.esa.int

 

[ding]

Look NASA has a website that was designed to teach people like Taz about the Big Bang too!

What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

Why do we call it that?

spaceplace.nasa.gov

 

[ding]

Here you go Taz

 

[ding]

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can see the BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

The universe likely started at some point? Ya think?

A Big Crunch sucked up by a black hole?! A black hole residing outside of some cyclical Big Crunch?! How does that absurdity work? You obviously don't know what a Big Crunch is supposed to be in the first place.

But in any event, because of the gravitational ejection events of violent relaxation and Hawking radiation nothing even remotely close to all the matter in the universe could ever be consumed by black holes in the first place, let alone "a super massive black hole." Sans any intervention, the end of the universe is a heat death.

Why would you bother with anything Vilenkin has to offer? Per the Tuft’s University website, Vilenkin is described as:
“Alexander Vilenkin
Director, Institute of Cosmology, and
L. and J. Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science”

Oh, my. An “evodelusionist”.

Sans your silly slogans, you’re now sans all credibility.

You are so cute.