Christians and muslims believe the same thing

[terraricca]

stu

this is a mere reflection of what i mean what happen;

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance”, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

this is not science but politics

Pierre

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,20:03)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think?? I've got no idea.  You've been using the word god.  What do you mean by that.  Do you have a “true” explanation? Stuart

stu

you use it to, and you say he is my imaginary friend ,how do you know that ?

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,14:54)

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,20:03) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think?? I've got no idea.  You've been using the word god.  What do you mean by that.  Do you have a “true” explanation? Stuart stu you use it to, and you say he is my imaginary friend ,how do you know that ? Pierre

Because you have never said what it is.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,14:51)

stu this is a mere reflection of what i mean what happen; Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance”, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof. Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does. The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. this is not science but politics Pierre

What are you talking about? What point is this a response to?

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,22:22)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,14:54) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,20:03) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think?? I've got no idea.  You've been using the word god.  What do you mean by that.  Do you have a “true” explanation? Stuart stu you use it to, and you say he is my imaginary friend ,how do you know that ? Pierre Because you have never said what it is.   Stuart

stu

ha ha

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,15:33)

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,22:22) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,14:54) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,20:03) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think?? I've got no idea.  You've been using the word god.  What do you mean by that.  Do you have a “true” explanation? Stuart stu you use it to, and you say he is my imaginary friend ,how do you know that ? Pierre Because you have never said what it is.   Stuart stu       ha ha

Yes, I'd also be embarrassed to admit I had not followed the advice of Saul of Tarsus in that I had not put the things of childhood (Imaginary Friends) behind me… if it was me.

Not that he could talk.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,23:06)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,15:33) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,22:22) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,14:54) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,20:03) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think?? I've got no idea.  You've been using the word god.  What do you mean by that.  Do you have a “true” explanation? Stuart stu you use it to, and you say he is my imaginary friend ,how do you know that ? Pierre Because you have never said what it is.   Stuart stu       ha ha Yes, I'd also be embarrassed to admit I had not followed the advice of Saul of Tarsus in that I had not put the things of childhood (Imaginary Friends) behind me… if it was me. Not that he could talk. Stuart

stu

I am definitely not Paul of Tarsus

but i follow is teachings

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,16:16)

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,23:06) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,15:33) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,22:22) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,14:54) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,20:03) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think?? I've got no idea.  You've been using the word god.  What do you mean by that.  Do you have a “true” explanation? Stuart stu you use it to, and you say he is my imaginary friend ,how do you know that ? Pierre Because you have never said what it is.   Stuart stu       ha ha Yes, I'd also be embarrassed to admit I had not followed the advice of Saul of Tarsus in that I had not put the things of childhood (Imaginary Friends) behind me… if it was me. Not that he could talk. Stuart stu I am definitely not Paul of Tarsus but i follow is teachings

Have you told any of your friends who have had extra-marital affairs or friends who are gay that they are worthy of death?

If not, in what way have you followed the teachings of Saul?

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ July 26 2011,14:28)

Quote (Stu @ July 25 2011,09:54) You have a human brain that voraciously seeks patterns, and finds them even where there are no patterns.   Hi Stuart, These are Good words to use on evolutionists; mind if I quote you? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Stuart,

For the written record, I'll take your know objections as the “go ahead”, to use your quote on atheists; OK?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[TimothyVI]

Hi Ed,

I think that quote is true of all humans, atheists as well as theists.
However the scientific atheist, or the atheist that is a critical thinker will go forward to prove scientifically whether or not  the patterns truly exist, whereas the evolutionist will merely accept it on blind faith.

Tim

[terraricca]

stuart

I would like that you answer my question;

is it possible to obtain something out of nothing ?? if you say “yes”please explain how ?

Pierre

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,23:39)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,16:16) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,23:06) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,15:33) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,22:22) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,14:54) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,20:03) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think?? I've got no idea.  You've been using the word god.  What do you mean by that.  Do you have a “true” explanation? Stuart stu you use it to, and you say he is my imaginary friend ,how do you know that ? Pierre Because you have never said what it is.   Stuart stu       ha ha Yes, I'd also be embarrassed to admit I had not followed the advice of Saul of Tarsus in that I had not put the things of childhood (Imaginary Friends) behind me… if it was me. Not that he could talk. Stuart stu I am definitely not Paul of Tarsus but i follow is teachings Have you told any of your friends who have had extra-marital affairs or friends who are gay that they are worthy of death? If not, in what way have you followed the teachings of Saul? Stuart

stu

I do not follow Saul but Paul

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,02:01)

stuart I would like that you answer my question; is it possible to obtain something out of nothing ?? if you say “yes”please explain how ? Pierre

It depends what you mean by nothing.

At the beginning of the Big Bang there was no matter or energy. The borrowed gravitational energy of the fast expansion of space-time was converted to light and matter, according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. Quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and overall matter is still appearing “from nothing” because the universe is still expanding.

If the expansion of the universe (which is actually speeding up) was to go into reverse, as the universe deflated all that borrowed gravitational energy would be paid back.

So if “nothing” means no matter and energy but only space-time with its property of gravity, then you can obtain something out of nothing, and we still are every second.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 27 2011,16:20)

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,02:01) stuart I would like that you answer my question; is it possible to obtain something out of nothing ?? if you say “yes”please explain how ? Pierre It depends what you mean by nothing. At the beginning of the Big Bang there was no matter or energy.   The borrowed gravitational energy of the fast expansion of space-time was converted to light and matter, according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.  Quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and overall matter is still appearing “from nothing” because the universe is still expanding.   If the expansion of the universe (which is actually speeding up) was to go into reverse, as the universe deflated all that borrowed gravitational energy would be paid back. So if “nothing” means no matter and energy but only space-time with its property of gravity, then you can obtain something out of nothing, and we still are every second. Stuart

stu

Nothing in the very sense of nothing

no time,not space,no matter,nothing

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,09:31)

Quote (Stu @ July 27 2011,16:20) Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,02:01) stuart I would like that you answer my question; is it possible to obtain something out of nothing ?? if you say “yes”please explain how ? Pierre It depends what you mean by nothing. At the beginning of the Big Bang there was no matter or energy.   The borrowed gravitational energy of the fast expansion of space-time was converted to light and matter, according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.  Quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and overall matter is still appearing “from nothing” because the universe is still expanding.   If the expansion of the universe (which is actually speeding up) was to go into reverse, as the universe deflated all that borrowed gravitational energy would be paid back. So if “nothing” means no matter and energy but only space-time with its property of gravity, then you can obtain something out of nothing, and we still are every second. Stuart stu Nothing in the very sense of nothing no time,not space,no matter,nothing Pierre

In that case you will have to define what you mean by nothing.

Don't think it is a trivial question, either. I'm not being funny, it is one of the most difficult things in science, and in philosophy.

As soon as you give any property to “nothing” then you are claiming that it is a thing. If you mean “not anything” then you will have to define “thing”. I defined things as matter and energy, but ask what space-time is and I'd ask you if you understand what turning left at the traffic lights an hour ago is, because “left” and “an hour ago” are two (actually three) of the dimensions that make up space time. Can you say where “turning left” came from? Remember it is not the car or particle turning left, it is just the turning aspect of it.

In the meantime I will stand by my answer. My starting point is the singularity of space-time that rapidly inflated, which is what the Big Bang actually is. The evidence goes back to 0.0000000000001 seconds after the start, and the Large Hadron Collider is currently investigating energies closer to the start than that.

Take all the data and extrapolate backwards and you get a space-time singularity. Ask the question “what caused” the singularity, and you cannot have an answer for two reasons, firstly time did not exist, so you cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know.

If you meet anyone who can tell you what there was before the Big Bang, and what caused it, you are talking with a con artist.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (TimothyVI @ July 26 2011,23:33)

Hi Ed, I think that quote is true of all humans, atheists as well as theists. However the scientific atheist, or the atheist that is a critical thinker will go forward to prove scientifically whether or not  the patterns truly exist, whereas the evolutionist will merely accept it on blind faith. Tim

Hi Tim,

It's nice to here you speak the truth!   …thanks!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 27 2011,16:53)

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,09:31) Quote (Stu @ July 27 2011,16:20) Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,02:01) stuart I would like that you answer my question; is it possible to obtain something out of nothing ?? if you say “yes”please explain how ? Pierre It depends what you mean by nothing. At the beginning of the Big Bang there was no matter or energy.   The borrowed gravitational energy of the fast expansion of space-time was converted to light and matter, according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.  Quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and overall matter is still appearing “from nothing” because the universe is still expanding.   If the expansion of the universe (which is actually speeding up) was to go into reverse, as the universe deflated all that borrowed gravitational energy would be paid back. So if “nothing” means no matter and energy but only space-time with its property of gravity, then you can obtain something out of nothing, and we still are every second. Stuart stu Nothing in the very sense of nothing no time,not space,no matter,nothing Pierre In that case you will have to define what you mean by nothing. Don't think it is a trivial question, either. I'm not being funny, it is one of the most difficult things in science, and in philosophy. As soon as you give any property to “nothing” then you are claiming that it is a thing.  If you mean “not anything” then you will have to define “thing”.  I defined things as matter and energy, but ask what space-time is and I'd ask you if you understand what turning left at the traffic lights an hour ago is, because “left” and “an hour ago” are two (actually three) of the dimensions that make up space time. Can you say where “turning left” came from?  Remember it is not the car or particle turning left, it is just the turning aspect of it. In the meantime I will stand by my answer.  My starting point is the singularity of space-time that rapidly inflated, which is what the Big Bang actually is.  The evidence goes back to 0.0000000000001 seconds after the start, and the Large Hadron Collider is currently investigating energies closer to the start than that.   Take all the data and extrapolate backwards and you get a space-time singularity.  Ask the question “what caused” the singularity, and you cannot have an answer for two reasons, firstly time did not exist, so you cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know. If you meet anyone who can tell you what there was before the Big Bang, and what caused it, you are talking with a con artist. Stuart

stu

the big bang is = IF

but assuming the big bang is real so what was before the big bang ?

Pierre

[princess]

Quote

so what was before the big bang

Quote

0.0000000000001 seconds

I take it as lightening T, we know it happens, have proof that it happens, why it happens, however, cannot get to the beginning of it, or better yet, one subject Prince Stuart will not touch women's intuition we know it happens have proof of it but does not know how it works.

[terraricca]

Quote (princess @ July 27 2011,20:02)

Quote so what was before the big bang Quote 0.0000000000001 seconds I take it as lightening T, we know it happens, have proof that it happens, why it happens, however, cannot get to the beginning of it, or better yet, one subject Prince Stuart will not touch women's intuition we know it happens have proof of it but does not know how it works.

princess

before all thing wen we reach the nothing stage the empty stage ,were there is nothing

because the evolution exist because it as a start,but before that start what was there ?

to my understanding nothing can exist in nothing

and if it does what is it??

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,11:34)

Quote (Stu @ July 27 2011,16:53) Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,09:31) Quote (Stu @ July 27 2011,16:20) Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,02:01) stuart I would like that you answer my question; is it possible to obtain something out of nothing ?? if you say “yes”please explain how ? Pierre It depends what you mean by nothing. At the beginning of the Big Bang there was no matter or energy.   The borrowed gravitational energy of the fast expansion of space-time was converted to light and matter, according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.  Quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and overall matter is still appearing “from nothing” because the universe is still expanding.   If the expansion of the universe (which is actually speeding up) was to go into reverse, as the universe deflated all that borrowed gravitational energy would be paid back. So if “nothing” means no matter and energy but only space-time with its property of gravity, then you can obtain something out of nothing, and we still are every second. Stuart stu Nothing in the very sense of nothing no time,not space,no matter,nothing Pierre In that case you will have to define what you mean by nothing. Don't think it is a trivial question, either. I'm not being funny, it is one of the most difficult things in science, and in philosophy. As soon as you give any property to “nothing” then you are claiming that it is a thing.  If you mean “not anything” then you will have to define “thing”.  I defined things as matter and energy, but ask what space-time is and I'd ask you if you understand what turning left at the traffic lights an hour ago is, because “left” and “an hour ago” are two (actually three) of the dimensions that make up space time. Can you say where “turning left” came from?  Remember it is not the car or particle turning left, it is just the turning aspect of it. In the meantime I will stand by my answer.  My starting point is the singularity of space-time that rapidly inflated, which is what the Big Bang actually is.  The evidence goes back to 0.0000000000001 seconds after the start, and the Large Hadron Collider is currently investigating energies closer to the start than that.   Take all the data and extrapolate backwards and you get a space-time singularity.  Ask the question “what caused” the singularity, and you cannot have an answer for two reasons, firstly time did not exist, so you cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know. If you meet anyone who can tell you what there was before the Big Bang, and what caused it, you are talking with a con artist. Stuart stu the big bang is = IF but assuming the big bang is real so what was before the big bang ? Pierre

Please read my post again. You will see I have answered that already.

Do you read what I write?

Stuart

[Author]

Posts