You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[Wuwei]

Shut up, you little troll.

Go away.

I think he's in love. He is following you around like a little puppy.

 

[scruffy]

I think he's in love. He is following you around like a little puppy.

ding dong is officially on ignore

The little troll used to be amusing, now he's prove himself to be a world class asshole.

I don't need to suffer through his bullshit anymore. He's like one of those homeless types I was talking about, leaving his garbage all over the place.

The trolls justify their behavior using disadvantage as an excuse. The ignorant troll around science forums "because they can".

After this last little demonstration of assholiness I'd be foolish to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Permanent ignore. Done. Next?

 

[Wuwei]

ding dong is officially on ignore

The little troll used to be amusing, now he's prove himself to be a world class asshole.

I don't need to suffer through his bullshit anymore. He's like one of those homeless types I was talking about, leaving his garbage all over the place.

The trolls justify their behavior using disadvantage as an excuse. The ignorant troll around science forums "because they can".

After this last little demonstration of assholiness I'd be foolish to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Permanent ignore. Done. Next?

He just want's attention and respect, but doesn't know how to get it.
That's it. I'm done too. I'm not putting him on ignore, but will still ghost him.
I have more to say on the Consciousness thread, but not tonight.

 

[ding]

Regarding the Big Bang as evidence for God is IMHO a matter of interpretation. Of course the "universe" in some form might have existed "prior to" the Big Bang, we don't know and likely cannot discover.

I don't see how. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. And then there's the CMB which could have only been produced from a massive chain event of paired particle production and annihilations.

 

[ding]

I think he's in love. He is following you around like a little puppy.

You have to see it that way. Your ego won't allow anything else.

 

[ding]

ding dong is officially on ignore

The little troll used to be amusing, now he's prove himself to be a world class asshole.

I don't need to suffer through his bullshit anymore. He's like one of those homeless types I was talking about, leaving his garbage all over the place.

The trolls justify their behavior using disadvantage as an excuse. The ignorant troll around science forums "because they can".

After this last little demonstration of assholiness I'd be foolish to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Permanent ignore. Done. Next?

Confront reality. Die to self.

 

[ding]

He just want's attention and respect, but doesn't know how to get it.
That's it. I'm done too. I'm not putting him on ignore, but will still ghost him.
I have more to say on the Consciousness thread, but not tonight.

The difference between objective truth and subjective truth is bias. To eliminate bias one can have no preference for an outcome. Many a saint have pondered this.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't see how. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely.

Yes I agree, what I was alluding to is that it might have taken some other form first, God might have created something and that something became a "singularity" and that then transitioned to the Big Bang. That's what I mean, that God originated everything is not disputed, there's no better rational explanation than God, spirit, will, intent.

This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. And then there's the CMB which could have only been produced from a massive chain event of paired particle production and annihilations.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is trolling ^^^

Saying "this is trolling" every time someone makes a post that you don't like, is trolling.

 

[ding]

Yes I agree, what I was alluding to is that it might have taken some other form first, God might have created something and that something became a "singularity" and that then transitioned to the Big Bang. That's what I mean, that God originated everything is not disputed, there's no better rational explanation than God, spirit, will, intent.

The singularity isn't an actual physical phenomenon. It's where the solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite density. It's the mathematical limit of the equations. Basically they run time backwards in the equations until they reach that point. The equations predict the evolution of space. They don't describe the process of creation. At least that's my understanding of all this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I disagree, there's a crucial thing to note, there's a distinction in science between "evidence for a hypothesis" and "consistent with a hypothesis" these two phrases do not have the same meaning, the latter is often mistaken for the former by the naive.

I already covered this. I am not going in circles with you.

The mountains of mutually supportive evidence render your point irrelevant and toothless, in its capacity to cast doubt on the fact that is evolutionary theory.

Yes, believe it or not, scientists thought of that before you did. It's half the battle, when compiling empirical evidence. It's baked into the testing.

 

[scruffy]

Saying "this is trolling" every time someone makes a post that you don't like, is trolling.

Trolls always try to make it about me.

Nice try though.

 

[ding]

Trolls always try to make it about me.

Nice try though.

But you're the one making it about others first, dummy.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I already covered this. I am not going in circles with you.

The mountains of mutually supportive evidence render your point irrelevant and toothless, in its capacity to cast doubt on the fact that is evolutionary theory.

Yes, believe it or not, scientists thought of that before you did. It's half the battle, when compiling empirical evidence. It's baked into the testing.

When the goal is to prop up a hypothesis more than determine the truth, that's not science, it's dogma, the emphasis is on preserving the foundational belief in evolution. The very act of expressing doubt results in condemnation and threats of ex-communication.

You're religious and don't even know it.

 

[ding]

You're religious and don't even know it.

Exactly. He has a preference for an outcome.

 

[ding]

No true scientist will have a preference for an outcome.

AGW anyone?

 

[Wuwei]

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

View attachment 1004839

Well one does have to ask, would the outcomes be really epistemologically any different? In each case we'd have a hypothesis and supporting evidence for it.

 

[scruffy]

Well one does have to ask, would the outcomes be really epistemologically any different? In each case we'd have a hypothesis and supporting evidence for it.

There is no evidence for "a creator".

The concept can't even be tested.

Still waiting for the first creationist to come up with an experiment.

Fairy tales don't count. The rules of science are it has to be repeatable and independently verifiable.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is no evidence for "a creator".

What do you look for to draw that conclusion?

The concept can't even be tested.

The concept "you'll stop experiencing the world if you shoot yourself through temple" cannot be tested either, but you nevertheless believe its true.

Still waiting for the first creationist to come up with an experiment.

God is not subject to laws and so cannot be the subject of experiments.

Fairy tales don't count. The rules of science are it has to be repeatable and independently verifiable.

This is metaphysics not science, science describes an already created universe not the creation of that universe.