- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Stu, admit it. You have faith and a belief that a singularity (that posses no intelligence) popped out of nothing and expanded and produced stars, planets, life, and bananas.
This is your religion, your belief.
Sorry but I cannot believe as you do. I did once, but I woke up.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 08 2008,23:21) Stu, admit it. You have faith and a belief that a singularity (that posses no intelligence) popped out of nothing and expanded and produced stars, planets, life, and bananas. This is your religion, your belief.
Sorry but I cannot believe as you do. I did once, but I woke up.
Do you think that is silly. t8? Is it absurd? Was it no longer absurd and silly when eventually Paul told you what to think?Stuart
Stu is trying to change the subject.
Stu is trying to change the subject.Actually another reason for changing it (besides being clearer) was so that you would be less inclined to change the subject. I actually foresaw how you would change the subject if I used those words. And guess what, you did exactly what I thought you would do.
Just when we were getting to the base of your belief system, I really didn't want to give any excuse for you to change the subject. But well done. You were desperate and found the way out.
But still, I sure would love to hear your explanation as to how something comes from nothing. As this is the base of your belief system.
You can be straight with me, will I ever get an answer?
Or will your silence just mean that we can carry thinking that you have a belief system that has no proof and yet ridicule others who believe in God.
At the moment I have my work cut out ridiculing the alternating arguments from silliness and absurdity. I don't believe anything about the time before a split second after the big bang. That is because I am ignorant about it. So are you, yet you seem to claim to know everything.
What was that about being taken seriously?
Stuart
The point is that you came here giving everyone who believed in God a hard time for that belief. And now you are saying that you are ignorant of the time before the Big Bang.
Somethings not right with your logic Stu. It doesn't add up.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,00:55) The point is that you came here giving everyone who believed in God a hard time for that belief. And now you are saying that you are ignorant of the time before the Big Bang. Somethings not right with your logic Stu. It doesn't add up.
There is no relationship between believing in a delusion and ignorance about details of the big bang. You have already made a conclusion about the origins of the universe on the basis of no evidence whatever. Are you calling that an honest position to take? So what exactly do you think is wrong with my logic? Is it absurd? Ludicrous? Silly? Or can you see something illogical that you can tell us about?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,00:55) The point is that you came here giving everyone who believed in God a hard time for that belief. And now you are saying that you are ignorant of the time before the Big Bang. Somethings not right with your logic Stu. It doesn't add up.
Greetings t8……..There is no logic with stu…he is a true contrarian…..you say up / he says down…..you yes/he says no and so on….The truth of the matter is,it shouldn't matter whether he is a believer or not…..Stu is an excelent means for honing your belief system and creating meaningfull discourse…Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,22:50) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,00:55) The point is that you came here giving everyone who believed in God a hard time for that belief. And now you are saying that you are ignorant of the time before the Big Bang. Somethings not right with your logic Stu. It doesn't add up.
Greetings t8……..There is no logic with stu…he is a true contrarian…..you say up / he says down…..you yes/he says no and so on….The truth of the matter is,it shouldn't matter whether he is a believer or not…..Stu is an excelent means for honing your belief system and creating meaningfull discourse…
So you can't say what the logic problem is either. That gives you a credibility problem.Stuart
Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,22:50) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,00:55) The point is that you came here giving everyone who believed in God a hard time for that belief. And now you are saying that you are ignorant of the time before the Big Bang. Somethings not right with your logic Stu. It doesn't add up.
Greetings t8……..There is no logic with stu…he is a true contrarian…..you say up / he says down…..you yes/he says no and so on….The truth of the matter is,it shouldn't matter whether he is a believer or not…..Stu is an excelent means for honing your belief system and creating meaningfull discourse…
I agree theodorej.He beats around the bush and only when you corner him does he admit to believing in something with no proof, teh very same thing that he ridicules others for.
He should be able to see that, but I think that he will probably just try and change the subject, rather than face it.
The thing is you know when someone is searching for the truth, because they keep an open mind and when they are truly challenged they don't run away, but face the challenge to see the weakness in what they believe in, in the hope of improving what they know.
But someone who tries to win on a point by trying to avoid certain things is not really a person worth talking with, because they are only in it to win at all costs and not to help.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 11 2008,23:38) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,22:50) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,00:55) The point is that you came here giving everyone who believed in God a hard time for that belief. And now you are saying that you are ignorant of the time before the Big Bang. Somethings not right with your logic Stu. It doesn't add up.
Greetings t8……..There is no logic with stu…he is a true contrarian…..you say up / he says down…..you yes/he says no and so on….The truth of the matter is,it shouldn't matter whether he is a believer or not…..Stu is an excelent means for honing your belief system and creating meaningfull discourse…
I agree theodorej.He beats around the bush and only when you corner him does he admit to believing in something with no proof, teh very same thing that he ridicules others for.
He should be able to see that, but I think that he will probably just try and change the subject, rather than face it.
The thing is you know when someone is searching for the truth, because they keep an open mind and when they are truly challenged they don't run away, but face the challenge to see the weakness in what they believe in, in the hope of improving what they know.
But someone who tries to win on a point by trying to avoid certain things is not really a person worth talking with, because they are only in it to win at all costs and not to help.
…And still you cannot actually fault my logic. All you can do is smear. Is that what Paul and John tell you to do in this situation? theodorej started this by saying there is something wrong with my logic. Can you defend that accusation or not? If not, do either of you have any integrity?Stuart
Ha, your logic is as follows:
That something came from nothing, or that something has always existed in various forms with the latest iteration being the cosmos.
This is your logic Stu. Correct me if I am wrong.
Which one is it?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,09:21) Ha, your logic is as follows: That something came from nothing, or that something has always existed in various forms with the latest iteration being the cosmos.
This is your logic Stu. Correct me if I am wrong.
Which one is it?
No. You are wrong. I never said those things. That is because I appreciate that as yet there is no evidence for either. I am not religious. Is that the misconception of my posts that you were trying to use as a smear? Your strawman factory must be one of the most productive enterprises in the country!Stuart
OK, so you believe one of those 2 (no God) options and you laugh at the people who believe in God.
Is that a fair conclusion?And you admit that to believe either of those 2 (no God) options requires belief?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,19:30) OK, so you believe one of those 2 (no God) options and you laugh at the people who believe in God.
Is that a fair conclusion?And you admit that to believe either of those 2 (no God) options requires belief?
Yes that is a fair conclusion. I claim to know nothing because that is exactly how much the evidence tells me. You too know nothing, because that is what the evidence tells you (if you are honest). So where does this 'god' conclusion come from? There is no evidence for that. I don't believe anything about it at all. You do believe something quite absurd. I do not reject out of hand your god conjecture but since we know nothing about it, you really need to seriously consider my Flying Spaghetti Monster conjecture too. Would you mock that? If so, on what grounds?I know you can't accept that I have no particular belief about what happened before a few milliseconds after the big bang, but it is hardly my problem.
Stuart
Quote you really need to seriously consider my Flying Spaghetti Monster conjecture too. When the flying spagetti monster writes an all time best seller over a period of 1600 years or so, we'll give it a look.
How does he fly?
I know of no way spagetti can “fly.” It can be thrown and stick to things. But I'm not sure the physics of today would allow for flying spagetti.
Since spagetti is physical, I imagine it must obey the physical laws of nature.
Also, I imagine it must look like spagetti. Has anyone ever seen the spagetti monster?
Of course, God is not described as physical. “God is a spirit.” And, it appears he wants us to know about him having inspired the all time best seller. I haven't heard much from the spagetti monster. Is he hiding? Maybe I accidently ate him yesterday.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,23:21) Yes that is a fair conclusion. I claim to know nothing because that is exactly how much the evidence tells me.
So a person who knows nothing ridicules others who say they know something. This is what it boils down to.Imagine doing that in Science. I don't know anything about Quantum Physics therefore it is a fantasy fairytale. Or I don't know anything about Rugby, therefore it is a crap game or it doesn't exist.
Come on Stu, you should be able to see the glaring obvious ignorant attitude in anyone who knows nothing and ridicules those who claim to know something.
A person who knows nothing should really just observe and if he then knows something, he can offer it as some kind of proof if he disagrees.
And here is the other thing Stu.
Whatever happened before the Big Bang and time is most likely a completely different paradigm to the cosmos and therefore it could be fair to say that any information about what caused the Big Bang may not be like things we observe within the cosmos paradigm.
You then call God and the notion of a creator a fairytale because it doesn't look like things that you observe. But any cause that caused the cosmos to happen is not going to be like the things you observe every day. The cause predates time and space.
God is said to be the cause, he is eternal, and has no beginning. Doesn't sound like this paradigm does it? But that is the point. The truth pre Big Bang probably won't sound like anything in this paradigm.
So if you are looking for logic from this paradigm, you will never know anything outside of this paradigm or time. In other words if you were an extremely small fish such as Krill and lived deep in the ocean, then your cosmos would be the ocean, and you would reject anything outright that wasn't surrounded by water.
All I see Stu is a person who is closed minded and ridicules any notion of what predates the Big Bang or Cosmos. For this reason, I can't see you ever breaking new ground. To do that, you need to be open to that which is beyond your own realm of experience and thinking.
So it took a while but Stu has admitted to knowing nothing but he ridicules others who claim to know something either by revelation or experience.
Poor Stu.
Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,15:22) Quote I claim to know nothing –stuart.
Then you will never be wrong.
Do you have the integrity not to quote mine my post? Maybe I should be flattered that what I write is so cogent that you have no answer but the usual creationist response to biological scientists (even though I am not one of them). Shall I start doing that to you? I don't think you rate highly enough for me to bother, actually. What is that line about pearls and swine again?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
