So, is there proof of INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

[ding]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

What is the truth ding?

I mean can you tell us how the universe was formed

Truth is reality.

Space and time were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the FLoT with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles. For every 1 billion anti-matter particles there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles. The anti-matter and matter particles annihilated each other ( according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light) releasing tremendous amounts of radiation (as measured by the cosmic background radiation) which propelled the remaining matter particles outward (as observed by red shift). So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

 

[ding]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

You do not live in reality, you live in the past that you recreate as you see fit to help you cope as you muddle thru another day of delusions

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

A delusion of grandeur is a false or unusual belief about one’s greatness. A person may believe, for instance, that they are famous, can end world wars, or that they are immortal.
Delusions of grandeur, also called grandiose delusions, often accompany other mental health symptoms, including other delusions. The may be related to mental or physical health conditions, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or some types of dementia.

In this article, we take a more in-depth look at delusions of grandeur, the different types, symptoms, causes, and possible treatments.


People experiencing delusions of grandeur see themselves as great, highly accomplished, more important than others, or even magical. The delusion may be persistent, or it may appear only periodically.
Some people with delusions of grandeur also experience other delusions, such as a fear of persecution or unusual religious beliefs.
However, a delusion of grandeur is more than just very high self-esteem or an inflated sense of self-importance. It marks a significant disconnection from the real world. A person with delusions of grandeur may continue to believe in the delusion in spite of contradictory evidence.

Types

Delusions of grandeur come in many forms. Many people experience delusions of a similar theme over time.
Delusions of grandeur can manifest in virtually limitless ways. Some of the most common types include:

• an inflated belief in one’s own importance, such as having the power to end war
• a belief that one is famous or occupies a high position in society
• a belief that one is a religious leader
• a belief in one’s ability to live forever
• a false belief that one cannot be harmed by disease or injury
• an inflated sense of intelligence
• a belief that one possesses magical skills, such as the ability to read minds

Cultural factors can affect the content of a person’s delusions. This is because culture affects a person’s knowledge and what they believe about the world. Something that is considered a delusion in one culture might not be in another.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

How does the universe which is inanimate mass distributed by gravitational forces have or not have morals?

Answer it does not except in the disorganized mind of a schizzo

Are you receiving treatment ding?

If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Again you are lost in a schizophrenic world where the universe controls your mind, you need help son, you will never find the answers you need here

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Definition of word salad

1psychology : unintelligible, extremely disorganized speech or writing manifested as a symptom of a mental disorder (such as schizophrenia)Damage to Wernicke's area can result in the loss of semantic associations … . Trying to speak results in garbled, nonsensical juxtapositions that neuroscientists call "word salad".— Duncan Graham-Rowe
2: a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or commentsIn the moments when the debate wasn't in circus form it seemed very conventional and very one-sided, with one candidate who could give complete, coherent and informed answers about issues and the other who specialized in word salad.— Robert Schlesinger… composed an essay that was a word salad of solemn academic jargon.— George Will

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

Seroquel	Rx	C	N	X	35 reviews	6.5
Abilify	Rx	C	N	X	78 reviews	6.2
Latuda	Rx	B	N	X	91 reviews	6.3
Zyprexa	Rx	C	N	X	40 reviews	6.1
Risperdal	Rx	C	N	X	45 reviews	5.1
risperidone	Rx	C	N	X	94 reviews	5.3
clozapine	Rx	B	N	X	39 reviews	8.1
olanzapine	Rx	C	N	X	83 reviews	5.8
quetiapine	Rx	C	N	X	58 reviews	6.7
Clozaril	Rx	B	N	X	11 reviews	9.1
Geodon	Rx	C	N	X	40 reviews	6.6
aripiprazole	Rx	C	N	X	116 reviews	6.1
Invega	Rx	C	N	X	63 reviews	4.9
Seroquel XR	Rx	C	N	X	8 reviews	7.6
Abilify Maintena	Rx	C	N	X	25 reviews	6.7
Saphris	Rx	C	N	X	36 reviews	7.6
Invega Sustenna	Rx	C	N	X	56 reviews	4.3
chlorpromazine	Rx	N	N	X	8 reviews	9.3
Risperdal Consta	Rx	C	N	X	7 reviews	7.6
ziprasidone	Rx	C	N	X	44 reviews	6.6
paliperidone	Rx	C	N	X	168 reviews	4.7
Fanapt	Rx	C	N	X	15 reviews	6.5
loxapine	Rx	N	N	X	7 reviews	6.9
Vraylar	Rx		N	X	42 reviews	6.2
Rexulti	Rx		N	X	30 reviews	5.1

• 1
• 2
• Next

Topics under Schizophrenia

• Schizoaffective Disorder (29 drugs)

Learn more about Schizophrenia
IBM Watson Micromedex

• Schizoaffective Disorder
• Schizophrenia

Symptoms and treatments

• Schizophrenia

Drugs.com Health Center

• Mental Health
• Schizophrenia: Overview and Latest Treatment Options

Mayo Clinic Reference

• Schizophrenia

ICD-10 CM Clinical Codes (External)

• Look up ICD10 codes for Schizophrenia on icd-codes.com

Legend

Rx	Prescription Only
OTC	Over the Counter
Rx/OTC	Prescription or Over the Counter
Off Label	This medication may not be approved by the FDA for the treatment of this condition.

Pregnancy Category
A	Adequate and well-controlled studies have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy (and there is no evidence of risk in later trimesters).
B	Animal reproduction studies have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women.
C	Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use in pregnant women despite potential risks.
D	There is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience or studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use in pregnant women despite potential risks.
X	Studies in animals or humans have demonstrated fetal abnormalities and/or there is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience, and the risks involved in use in pregnant women clearly outweigh potential benefits.
N	FDA has not classified the drug.

Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Schedule
N	Is not subject to the Controlled Substances Act.
1	Has a high potential for abuse. Has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. There is a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.
2	Has a high potential for abuse. Has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. Abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
3	Has a potential for abuse less than those in schedules 1 and 2. Has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
4	Has a low potential for abuse relative to those in schedule 3. It has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to those in schedule 3.
5	Has a low potential for abuse relative to those in schedule 4. Has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to those in schedule 4.

Alcohol
X	Interacts with Alcohol.

Browse Treatment Options

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G
• H
• I
• J
• K
• L
• M
• N
• O
• P
• Q
• R
• S
• T
• U
• V
• W
• X
• Y
• Z

Further information
Always consult your healthcare provider to ensure the information displayed on this page applies to your personal circumstances.
Medical Disclaimer
MORE INFORMATION
Care Notes2 related articles
Harvard Health Guide1 related article
Mayo Clinic1 related article

Latest FDA Approvals for Schizophrenia

• Caplyta
• Secuado
• Perseris
• Abilify MyCite
• Aristada

Subscribe to our newsletters
FDA Safety Alerts
Daily MedNews
Weekly Drug News Roundup
Monthly Newsletter
I accept the Terms and Privacy Policy
Email address




Drugs.com Mobile Apps
The easiest way to lookup drug information, identify pills, check interactions and set up your own personal medication records. Available for Android and iOS devices.
Explore Apps

SUPPORT

• Help Center
• Frequent Questions
• Sitemap
• Contact Us

ABOUT

• About Drugs.com
• Advertising Policy
• Attribution & Citations
• Drugs.com Blog

TERMS & PRIVACY

• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Facebook
• Twitter
• YouTube
• RSS Feed

Subscribe to Drugs.com newsletters for the latest medication news, alerts, new drug approvals and more.
Drugs.com provides accurate and independent information on more than 24,000 prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines and natural products. This material is provided for educational purposes only and is not intended for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Data sources include IBM Watson Micromedex (updated 30 June 2020), Cerner Multum™ (updated 1 July 2020), Wolters Kluwer™ (updated 1 July 2020) and others.

• 
• Third Party Advertising
  
• 
  
  We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

All the conditions for life that can and have been observed were observed on Earth. That said there in no describable condition for non Earth life

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

 

[esalla]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

What is the truth ding?

I mean can you tell us how the universe was formed

Truth is reality.

Space and time were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the FLoT with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles. For every 1 billion anti-matter particles there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles. The anti-matter and matter particles annihilated each other ( according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light) releasing tremendous amounts of radiation (as measured by the cosmic background radiation) which propelled the remaining matter particles outward. So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

LOL, obviously matter and antimatter did not annihilate one another or were not equal or there is no universe

Check your math retard

I feel a cosmic brain flux in the ding

 

[ding]

Let's...

 

[esalla]

Let's...

See I predicted that cosmic brain flux perfectly

You went to a University just to be humiliated by little old me?

How do you account and correct for the failed cosmological constant

 

[ding]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

What is the truth ding?

I mean can you tell us how the universe was formed

Truth is reality.

Space and time were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the FLoT with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles. For every 1 billion anti-matter particles there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles. The anti-matter and matter particles annihilated each other ( according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light) releasing tremendous amounts of radiation (as measured by the cosmic background radiation) which propelled the remaining matter particles outward. So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

LOL, obviously matter and antimatter did not annihilate one another or were not equal or there is no universe

Check your math retard

You are arguing with George Wald.

"...How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now contitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

And CERN

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem | CERN

home.cern

.

And every other cosmologist and physicist

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Origin of the Universe: Why There Is So Much Matter and So Little Antimatter

Lancaster physicists working on the T2K major international experiment in Japan are closing in on the mystery of why there is so much matter in the Universe, and so little antimatter. The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early Universe but instead the Uni

scitechdaily.com

Inner Workings: Physicists dig deep to seek the origin of matter

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ding]

Let's...

See I predicted that cosmic brain flux perfectly

You went to a University just to be humiliated by little old me?

How do you account and correct for the failed cosmological constant

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

 

[esalla]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

What is the truth ding?

I mean can you tell us how the universe was formed

Truth is reality.

Space and time were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the FLoT with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles. For every 1 billion anti-matter particles there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles. The anti-matter and matter particles annihilated each other ( according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light) releasing tremendous amounts of radiation (as measured by the cosmic background radiation) which propelled the remaining matter particles outward. So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

LOL, obviously matter and antimatter did not annihilate one another or were not equal or there is no universe

Check your math retard

You are arguing with George Wald.

"...How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now contitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

And CERN

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem | CERN

home.cern

.

And every other cosmologist and physicist

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Origin of the Universe: Why There Is So Much Matter and So Little Antimatter

Lancaster physicists working on the T2K major international experiment in Japan are closing in on the mystery of why there is so much matter in the Universe, and so little antimatter. The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early Universe but instead the Uni

scitechdaily.com

Inner Workings: Physicists dig deep to seek the origin of matter

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I am not arguing anything, I ask a question that left you in brain flux.

The question you need to answer is who is interviewing who?

Any thoughts genius?

 

[Taz]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

He's pruning me to get me ready to give me cancer. In the meantime, he'll deform more babies, and give them cancer.

 

[ding]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

What is the truth ding?

I mean can you tell us how the universe was formed

Truth is reality.

Space and time were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the FLoT with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles. For every 1 billion anti-matter particles there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles. The anti-matter and matter particles annihilated each other ( according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light) releasing tremendous amounts of radiation (as measured by the cosmic background radiation) which propelled the remaining matter particles outward. So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

LOL, obviously matter and antimatter did not annihilate one another or were not equal or there is no universe

Check your math retard

You are arguing with George Wald.

"...How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now contitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

And CERN

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem | CERN

home.cern

.

And every other cosmologist and physicist

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Origin of the Universe: Why There Is So Much Matter and So Little Antimatter

Lancaster physicists working on the T2K major international experiment in Japan are closing in on the mystery of why there is so much matter in the Universe, and so little antimatter. The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early Universe but instead the Uni

scitechdaily.com

Inner Workings: Physicists dig deep to seek the origin of matter

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I am not arguing anything, I ask a question that left you in brain flux.

The question you need to answer is who is interviewing who?

Any thoughts genius?

I'm just making my argument for the OP.

See?

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

He's pruning me to get me ready to give me cancer. In the meantime, he'll deform more babies, and give them cancer.

Maimonides replies:

MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things; many sayings and songs of the nations dwell on this idea.

 

[Taz]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

He's pruning me to get me ready to give me cancer. In the meantime, he'll deform more babies, and give them cancer.

Maimonides replies:

MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things; many sayings and songs of the nations dwell on this idea.

One of your problems is that you're way too gullible.

 

[ding]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

He's pruning me to get me ready to give me cancer. In the meantime, he'll deform more babies, and give them cancer.

Maimonides replies:

MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things; many sayings and songs of the nations dwell on this idea.

One of your problems is that you're way too gullible.

I see existence for what it is. An incredible and precious and rare gift.

I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. I feel bad for people like that.

 

[ding]

Because you are claiming what you speak as the truth. You don't say, hey, Taz could be wrong, this is just Taz's opinion. You are literally representing what you say as THE truth.

No, I said there is no universal truth as everyone sees things their own way. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means you believe only opinions exist so you can't be right about anything.

So you lose again.

#stillwinning

What are you? 12 years old? lol.

That would make your beat down even worse.

NO, YOU ARE! lol

At the heart of the debate is reality. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So the definition of reality proves there is an absolute or universal truth.

So whose reality do we need to follow? Yours?

Reality is independent of people, Taz.

Truth, like logic, is discovered. We can't make it be what we want it to be. And when people like you try to do that they end up suffering predictable surprises. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error fails. And when it does you discover the logical reason why the standard exists. It's how God prunes us.

Aren't you happy that God is pruning you?

He's pruning me to get me ready to give me cancer. In the meantime, he'll deform more babies, and give them cancer.

Maimonides replies:

MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things; many sayings and songs of the nations dwell on this idea.

One of your problems is that you're way too gullible.

Maimonides responds:

You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare: for you find countries that have not been flooded or burned for thousands of years: there are thousands of men in perfect health, deformed individuals are a strange and exceptional occurrence, or say few in number if you object to the term exceptional,--they are not one-hundredth, not even one-thousandth part of those that are perfectly normal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

So do we. We call it the death penalty.

 

[LittleNipper]

Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

So do we. We call it the death penalty.

What astounds me is that on the opposite side of the planet, another culture came to the conclusion that a human blood sacrifice was necessary to appease their gods. Obviously, they erred in missing the point that GOD demanded a perfect sacrifice for sin and anything else was tainted.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't know how to say this in a "politically correct" way; however, it really needs to be said. Look over this thread. In fact, look over all the various threads thought this site. Several things I believe will stand out:

1. On the whole, people who don't believe in GOD tend to have very filthy mouths. Sorry, the facts speak for themselves. That doesn't mean that I've never used a choice word or two --- or three, but I must say, I've always felt/feel that it is not liberating but hurtful, demeaning and unkind. Since becoming a believer, I really want to help all people and not just a select clique of sophisticates who I'd want at my party. I actually feel bad whenever I insult someone, and I try very hard to respect everyone while obviously contrary/divergent in understanding this Creation.

2. For the most part, people who don't believe in GOD show a lack of respect for those that disagree with them. It isn't like --- well, " I don't agree with you but let's be friends anyway." It's more like "You're stupid and nothing you say is of any value ---- I want to bite your nose off. Tell me where you live, so I can blow up your house, or at the least drown you in the toilet." None of this makes me feel that what I believe is wrong. In fact, I makes me feel that I'm dealing with possessed people.

3. I heard Christians asked over and over to prove GOD exists. And yet the fact that average people who say they believe in the Bible generally are (at the very least) more forbearing, persistently kind in the face of adversity, and tolerant of what others think while still disagreeing. This simply is not the case of most non-believers unless it's on a one to one bases. But where there is a group of non-believers gathered around a Christian or two, they become ravenous wolves. This wouldn't be odd, except if GOD didn't exist, would not everyone pretty much behave in the same way and exhibit the same belligerence? Why should I care what you believe or think? What's it to me? But I in fact feel lead to persist and testify of what I believe to those who seem so blind to the obvious. I don't wish anyone to be able to say that no one told me.

4. I hear non-believers say again and again that there is no proof of GOD. And yet I know of multiple events in my own life that helped me, protected me, saved me from harm, and even confronted me when I was out of line ------- that are totally unexplainable from a position of "that's simply a coincidence..." I'd hate to imagine that atheists or agnostics here could say that they've lived their lives without anything unexplainable ever happening to them. That would be a boring life indeed. And yet I see such events as GOD's teaching method and trying to garner one's attention... Is it possible that anyone could be so hardened as to not perceive the obvious?

And yet I know of multiple events in my own life that helped me, protected me, saved me from harm, and even confronted me when I was out of line ------- that are totally unexplainable from a position of "that's simply a coincidence..."

.
what has that to do with a religion / book of forgeries and fallacies -

View attachment 358053

what of their fate.

name one century christianity has not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent - all three desert religions.

of proof, where is yours the 1st century religious itinerant ever claimed to be a messiah.

I don't see CHRISTIANITY as being in the forefront in any century. I do see satanic corruption of "religious" ideology as being front and center but certainly in no way do I see BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY as being harmful nor starting wars. Surely all the aborted babies (which one would seem to see as pure and innocent) are not dead because of CHRISTIAN ETHICS.

I don't see CHRISTIANITY as being in the forefront in any century.

.
denial is the tool of participation.

all three - biblical - desert religions have the same uninterrupted history since their beginnings ... that of christianity obliterating the events and message of the 1st century through forgeries and misrepresentation.

View attachment 358161

without the forgeries and fallacies written into their books are alleviated by the truly religious their demonic nature will remain as intended - sinner.

And what exactly do burning crosses and hiding under sheets have to do with Biblical Christianity? Some people burn crosses down and some people have them torn down. I see no difference. Both are an attempt to silence the Message of Salvation that Christ brings as a free gift and bestows upon everyone (no matter their ethnicity) who will receive it.

And what exactly do burning crosses and hiding under sheets have to do with Biblical Christianity?

.
it's what you represent, nipper -

View attachment 358653

the bible belt stranglehold is the attempt to be taken out of this countries institutions that you cry about in every post you write.

the awful 4th century christian bible itself is a bedrock of evil presently written the same for its adherents. nipper.

Please show me a passage in the Bible that is evil. Honestly, just because a person claims to be a "Christian" doesn't mean that he follows Jesus or always does what is correct. As a Christian, I'm trying to follow Jesus, and Jesus in fact preached to mostly Jews (I understand that the KKK also hates Jews). There is also a passage in the New Testament concerning a disciple being sent to minister to an Ethiopian eunuch. I hardly imagine that those pictured above would make an effort to cross the tracks let alone witness to certain people...

 

[LittleNipper]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

Jesus sent the Christians here to witness to you.

 

[alang1216]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

Jesus sent the Christians here to witness to you.

Have they seen a burning bush or are they just passing on what others have told them? In court that is called hearsay.

 

[LittleNipper]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

Jesus sent the Christians here to witness to you.

Have they seen a burning bush or are they just passing on what others have told them? In court that is called hearsay.

Yes, I do believe Christians have duly noted their lives going up in flames and openly embrace the only means of salvation. Even Moses could have walked away from the burning bush ---- but he didn't.