- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 04 2010,12:10) STU, If you go to physics I will own you on that one too:)
Maybe you will even convert me to your cult. That would make four members, wouldn't it. You, two of your relatives, and me.You are a joker BD.
Stuart
Stu,
You making me laugh… I'm laughing so loud my neighbours came over to see what I was laughing about…You are running scared….ha ha, i'm sorry to laugh at you..ok, i'm laughing at what you are saying….not at you because i know that it is Satan that is driving your thoughts, your intelligence.
Why are you scared Stu. It shows in your response!
What does 'religious platitude' mean.
I don't understand big words… What you saying…that i'm wrong? How? Why am i wrong?
Psuedo.. what? Why cover your ignorance with wierd words. Just tell me what i said that is wrong…flashing back long unspeakable words doesn't refute what i said.
Besides , isn't it al Scientfic fact. Where is 'God' in 'Scientific America'
Just because Steven Hawkin has a electromechanical voice box like Darth Vader doesn't make him any wiser than the ordinary man in the street. Indeed, a child has more common sense than he does…yes, this is a major failing with superScientist, they lack basic commonsense. Even Einstein was not immune, but at least he realised there was more to 'life' than Scientific formulae.
Selling your soul to Satan to become the discoverer of God's secret to life is never going to pay back.
The law of Diminishing returns applied: The more you understand about God's world, the more you realise you don't understand.
Yet, it is all as simple as 'E=Mc2: God is all energy and intelligence (A Spirit) and He decides to create something wonderful…some unheard of, something Glorious that will demonstrate his power, his majesty, his might and his authority.
He will create a World, a physical world with physical objects, element, living beings, self replicating entities, entities with intelligent to varyung degrees dependent on need. A world that will glorify him and speak of his magnificencefor eternity.And, he will go even further, yes, even further to show his might…he will create a being that is a physical representation of himself, a Man.
God will put into that Man all that he has and can do but in a limited manner, yes, that Man will be his image in physical form. He can think, create, design, build, destroy, sense, have passion, drive, sympathy, empathy, authority, power, might, be majestic, husband the lesser creatures, and communicate, understand, and greatest of all – have a keen and immediate awareness of his creator and his position in this great world. Yes, the physical image of the invisible Spirit, yet with and independent spirit in the physical body.
So, God fashions his energy into physical elements and from elements into molecules and from molecules into explicit combinations of self sustaining bodies with degrees of intelligence. Each 'living' body, whether, flora or fauna, has a remit to produce seed, to protect itself, to compete against others, for a purpose, to grow and occupy the earth but with reservation within it's species, to evolve but only so far. Only the Man, who is the image of his creator, is given no planetary boundary, anywhere, everywhere, 'as you like it' it is yours only do good with it and with all that is in it.
And Stu, this is the 'Why?'.
You were flummoxed, ha ha…poor you…when it is all so easy. Yes, 'Why'. And you could not answer the most simplest, the most basic, the most fundamental question; 'Why?'..why, Stu, why?
Please…try a little harder with JustAskin.
Oh, and remember, no big words…!
BD
Quote Compare what we both wrote and see that pbviously I know what I am talking about there is no curving effect without mass. You wrote:
Quote Gravity only acts on Matter if it doesn't “matter” there is no gravity…His idea has too many suppositions basically all he is saying is that matter with gravity would cause matter to come to a pinpoint and explode outwards causing matter in the form of atoms to reorganize into heavier objects which would cause gravity to act on the objects and so on but the silly part is he still has to except E=mc2 since Gravity only has relevence to mass Hawkins assumes Mass has no creation.
Where in that did you say “there is no curving effect without mass”?Gravity also affects energy, since it has a mass equivalence. Energy is borrowed from the gravitational energy of the expansion of space-time, and by E=mc2 is interconverted with mass. There is no “silly” omission here, Einstein’s theory is a fundamental part of it.
You have it the wrong way round because there is no matter without gravity.
Stuart
JustAskin
Quote You making me laugh… I'm laughing so loud my neighbours came over to see what I was laughing about…
Greetings to your neighbours!Quote What does 'religious platitude' mean.
Don’t you own a dictionary? A platitude is a statement that has been written to appear deep and meaningful but has no actual meaning at all. If you know your bible then you would have read dozens of them. You gave me at least four.For a laugh I made some up myself at one point. How about:
“God isn’t just the mustard in the sandwich, he is the whole sandwich”
Do you find that meaningful? It means nothing to me. It is a platitude. I tried to make it sound impressive, although I have not had as much practise as those who invented the myth of Jesus.
Quote Psuedo.. what? Why cover your ignorance with wierd words. Just tell me what i said that is wrong…flashing back long unspeakable words doesn't refute what i said.
Pseudoscience. Look, if you want I will send you a dictionary. It might save me explaining the English language to you. You wrote:Quote All things, everything, is energy, all visible elements are compressed energy, energy so compressed that it forms a physical entity and a building block of the universe.
Compression is the wrong way of thinking about it. Mass and energy are equivalent, and to really explain it you would need to understand how matter can be both waves and particles at the same time.Quote Just because Steven Hawkin has a electromechanical voice box like Darth Vader doesn't make him any wiser than the ordinary man in the street. Indeed, a child has more common sense than he does…yes, this is a major failing with superScientist, they lack basic commonsense. Even Einstein was not immune, but at least he realised there was more to 'life' than Scientific formulae.
What does wisdom have to do with it? What does this have to do with common sense? Cosmology is almost entirely counter-intuitive. Common sense little help. What you need is uncommon sense, which Hawking has by the truckload. All he is telling you is the best model we have for how the universe works, and how it began. If you want to be scientific about it you will have to disprove him. If you just want to be abusive, well any idiot can abuse others, you don’t have to be a special christian to do that.Quote The law of Diminishing returns applied: The more you understand about God's world, the more you realise you don't understand.
And yet you understand well enough to tell other people how they should behave. Isn’t that just a little bit hypocritical?Quote Yet, it is all as simple as 'E=Mc2: God is all energy and intelligence (A Spirit)
Religious platitude.Quote and He decides to create something wonderful…some unheard of, something Glorious that will demonstrate his power, his majesty, his might and his authority.
Fantasy assertion.Quote He will create a World, a physical world with physical objects, element, living beings, self replicating entities, entities with intelligent to varyung degrees dependent on need. A world that will glorify him and speak of his magnificencefor eternity.
Fantasy ramblings.Quote And Stu, this is the 'Why?'.
Huh? Doesn’t the word “why” usually require there to be a question mark at the end of the question?Quote You were flummoxed, ha ha…poor you…when it is all so easy. Yes, 'Why'. And you could not answer the most simplest, the most basic, the most fundamental question; 'Why?'..why, Stu, why?
Along with your satan fallacy, you have been duped by someone into thinking that the word “why” constitutes a meaningful question. It does not.Stuart
Stu, you really are an idiot.
Do you really believe that JustAskin is ignorant? Why did you fall for such a base introduction?
It shows you have not much wisdom but just blundering Spirit.
Stu, whatever you paid, or more likely, PAYING, Satan for your Scientific, Athiestic, self denial of God's great creation in you, it ain't worth it.
You do not understand the higher aspects beyond Science. You remind me of a Flatlander who lives in a two dimensional world.
Walk left, x-(n), until you meet an obstacle and you have to climb over it, y+(n), x-(m), y-(n).
Climbing up requires use of much energy. Try telling Flatlander that he can go round, z+(n), x-(m), z-(n), and he will laugh and say that is delusion.
Have you ever watch two ants on an ant- trail trying to get past one another? Flatlanders, almost.Science tells basic physical and metaphysical truths, the X and Y components.
Science cannot tell you the 'Why', the 'Z' component.Why do the laws of 'Nature' work?
By the way, 'Nature', is a word devised to avoid saying 'God'.
When man cannot figure out something but wants to look 'clever', he says it's 'Natural', it's 'Nature'.There is no such thing as 'Random'. Everything happens for a good and proper reason according to 'God's law'…Nature. We call something 'Random' if we cant work out the 'law' under which it operates.
Just think of raindrops…no matter how random the raindrops, every part of the area covered by the rain storm gets watered. No 'random' patch. How? Why? Surely, if the thing was 'truly random' then it is as likely that an area would be missed as much as an area is hit.
Branches on Trees 'appear randomly spread…no, there is a pattern so the tree is balanced and the leaves have the best chance to catch the light. How, how did the tree know when it 'decided' to put out a branch?Ahh, too much to explain to an amauter mind?
Stu, i'm going to call you 'titken Stu' because 'C, you gone out for T' and you won't answer questions cos you yella?
JustBoastin
Quote Stu, you really are an idiot.
Are you using that as an argument?Quote Do you really believe that JustAskin is ignorant? Why did you fall for such a base introduction?
It shows you have not much wisdom but just blundering Spirit.
On what topic specifically?Quote Stu, whatever you paid, or more likely, PAYING, Satan for your Scientific, Athiestic, self denial of God's great creation in you, it ain't worth it.
One religious platitude and one unsupported assertion. Do you have anything but religious bluster?Quote You do not understand the higher aspects beyond Science. You remind me of a Flatlander who lives in a two dimensional world. Walk left, x-(n), until you meet an obstacle and you have to climb over it, y+(n), x-(m), y-(n). Climbing up requires use of much energy. Try telling Flatlander that he can go round, z+(n), x-(m), z-(n), and he will laugh and say that is delusion. Have you ever watch two ants on an ant- trail trying to get past one another? Flatlanders, almost.
Are you trying to impress your neighbours now, or have they already gone home bored?Quote Science tells basic physical and metaphysical truths, the X and Y components.
Science cannot tell you the 'Why', the 'Z' component.
Platitude. Did you mean it to be a religious one?Quote Why do the laws of 'Nature' work?
The laws of nature are a description of how space / time / matter / energy / etc appear to work. Are you asking how a description works? It works because new observations match the established model.Quote By the way, 'Nature', is a word devised to avoid saying 'God'.
When man cannot figure out something but wants to look 'clever', he says it's 'Natural', it's 'Nature'.
I don’t use the word nature as a substitute for someone else’s Imaginary Friend.Quote There is no such thing as 'Random'. Everything happens for a good and proper reason according to 'God's law'…Nature. We call something 'Random' if we cant work out the 'law' under which it operates.
Just think of raindrops…no matter how random the raindrops, every part of the area covered by the rain storm gets watered. No 'random' patch. How? Why? Surely, if the thing was 'truly random' then it is as likely that an area would be missed as much as an area is hit.
Branches on Trees 'appear randomly spread…no, there is a pattern so the tree is balanced and the leaves have the best chance to catch the light. How, how did the tree know when it 'decided' to put out a branch?
Were you full of wonderment or self-aggrandisation when you typed that?Quote Stu, i'm going to call you 'titken Stu' because 'C, you gone out for T' and you won't answer questions cos you yella?
It is not me that is the idiot. Did you have a conversation in mind, or were you just looking to address the world in the manner of a Nuremberg rally?Stuart
Yes, stu, you just rubberstamped your idiocy.
No wonder you are an athiest. You don't understand anything. Nor are you capable of such.
Pick and choose what you want to respond to. Neat…but stu-peas, ooops, I meant 'stupid'.
You are vacuous. What are you doing in this forum?
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 04 2010,15:11) Yes, stu, you just rubberstamped your idiocy. No wonder you are an athiest. You don't understand anything. Nor are you capable of such.
Pick and choose what you want to respond to. Neat…but stu-peas, ooops, I meant 'stupid'.
You are vacuous. What are you doing in this forum?
I am having conversations with people in which I front up and justify my claims. You are addressing the crowd as Mussolini would have. As I said, you appear to know all the answers, so I will not presume to tell you.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2010,13:33) BD Quote Compare what we both wrote and see that pbviously I know what I am talking about there is no curving effect without mass. You wrote:
Quote Gravity only acts on Matter if it doesn't “matter” there is no gravity…His idea has too many suppositions basically all he is saying is that matter with gravity would cause matter to come to a pinpoint and explode outwards causing matter in the form of atoms to reorganize into heavier objects which would cause gravity to act on the objects and so on but the silly part is he still has to except E=mc2 since Gravity only has relevence to mass Hawkins assumes Mass has no creation.
Where in that did you say “there is no curving effect without mass”?Gravity also affects energy, since it has a mass equivalence. Energy is borrowed from the gravitational energy of the expansion of space-time, and by E=mc2 is interconverted with mass. There is no “silly” omission here, Einstein’s theory is a fundamental part of it.
You have it the wrong way round because there is no matter without gravity.
Stuart
It doesn't matter which way you say it the effect is still the same. Gravity and Matter act together, why do you insist on disputing this physical fact?I'm not trying to belittle you I seriously want to know why would you dispute the obvious?
When Stephen said that gravity would cause the big bang all by itself it simply presupposed and extraordinary amout of information and I don't see why you can't admit that.
Even if what he said was accurate you would have to admit he does not explain WHY it would occur and Quite frankly it would not occur, How would the center in which the big bang occurs have a location without mass and energy motion?
Stu, Why? Because you can't so you don't and won't.
Shows you don't know…poor you, so sad.
Mad, but not all bad,
Cos if it had,
Lot and his wife'd still be in their pad,
Tormenting themselves in the local fad
Being taunted with Gehad,
Wishing they'd listened, just a tad
To the angels, been a good lad.
They said 'don't look back, simple, paltry'
But the wife felt sorry, went instantly Salty
Stu, add little salt to your diet
Minimal oil, grill, don't fry it.
Drink with caution
Too much blurs the mind, causes distortion.
One day the world of Science
May reveal God, a holy alliance.
But until then and before you die,
Ask one question, the reason 'Why?'.bod, titken stu can't answer because athiest don't have answers.
Water is wet. Science.
Why? Umm…cos it is?
What is intellect? Dunno but i'm fullovit.
So what is it you fullov again?
Duh, dats not a scientific question.So let me get you here. You saying you, and science can only answer questions if they are based on science.
Yep, that's about it.
But aren't there greater things in this world other than Science?
Nope, Science is Our God.
Ah, i see. Hmmm Science is your God, eh?
Well, that's all we have time for tonight and a convenient juncture to end at.Goodnight all. Don't forget to tune in again tomorrow for a new episoden of 'Titken Stu walks of a cliff edge so he can prove that there is no God except Science God', goodnight!
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 04 2010,15:25) When Stephen said that gravity would cause the big bang all by itself it simply presupposed and extraordinary amout of information and I don't see why you can't admit that. Even if what he said was accurate you would have to admit he does not explain WHY it would occur and Quite frankly it would not occur, How would the center in which the big bang occurs have a location without mass and energy motion?
So while you criticise Hawking for what you consider wild speculation, you then assert your own wild speculation.At the instant of the Big Bang there IS no energy / matter.
Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 04 2010,15:44) bod, titken stu can't answer because athiest don't have answers. Water is wet. Science.
Why? Umm…cos it is?
What is intellect? Dunno but i'm fullovit.
So what is it you fullov again?
Duh, dats not a scientific question.So let me get you here. You saying you, and science can only answer questions if they are based on science.
Yep, that's about it.
But aren't there greater things in this world other than Science?
Nope, Science is Our God.
Ah, i see. Hmmm Science is your God, eh?
Well, that's all we have time for tonight and a convenient juncture to end at.Goodnight all. Don't forget to tune in again tomorrow for a new episoden of 'Titken Stu walks of a cliff edge so he can prove that there is no God except Science God', goodnight!
Maybe you will have sobered up by then.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2010,10:55) Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 04 2010,15:44) bod, titken stu can't answer because athiest don't have answers. Water is wet. Science.
Why? Umm…cos it is?
What is intellect? Dunno but i'm fullovit.
So what is it you fullov again?
Duh, dats not a scientific question.So let me get you here. You saying you, and science can only answer questions if they are based on science.
Yep, that's about it.
But aren't there greater things in this world other than Science?
Nope, Science is Our God.
Ah, i see. Hmmm Science is your God, eh?
Well, that's all we have time for tonight and a convenient juncture to end at.Goodnight all. Don't forget to tune in again tomorrow for a new episoden of 'Titken Stu walks of a cliff edge so he can prove that there is no God except Science God', goodnight!
Maybe you will have sobered up by then.Stuart
hahahaQuote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,19:47) What you can do is say that there is something now, and demonstrate that there is more than there used to be in an expanding universe, then extrapolate backwards to t=0, the Big Bang, at which point you can see the maths says there was nothing.
OK, lets go back to 0.
So how do we progress to 1 from there?Quote (t8 @ Sep. 04 2010,20:13) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,19:47) What you can do is say that there is something now, and demonstrate that there is more than there used to be in an expanding universe, then extrapolate backwards to t=0, the Big Bang, at which point you can see the maths says there was nothing.
OK, lets go back to 0.
So how do we progress to 1 from there?
Wherever 1 is, you get there through the expansion of space producing gravitational energy that is converted to matter.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,19:47) Are you talking in absolute and final terms now, or will you wait the next installment of insights from the ever higher energy collisions being planned in Switzerland / France?
What are you on about.I am just as interested in seeing what particles can be discovered as you. Whatever the outcome, it cannot disprove God. God's existence doesn't hinge on the outcome of these collisions Stu. All these collisions will hopefully show us, are particles that existed at the time of the beginnings of the universe. We may even find the theoretical god particle and even that doesn't do away with God. No amount of collisions will explain how there was supposedly nothing and then a singularity just exploded/inflated at near or greater speeds than light and kept moving outward in a 3-dimensional space to become big enough to fit on a human hand, and then continued to inflate to a size that is almost incomprehensible to the human mind.
Sure we may describe in part, how it happened, but we can never describe why or what caused that to happen. Similarly, you can go into great detail about how a cake was made or came to be by describing temperatures, ingredients, and the recipe, but that would never lead us to ignore the one who baked it and why he baked it.
I love science and I love God. There is nothing contradictory about either to me. Rather they are complimentary. I take the same attitude as Sir Isaac Newton, that science is a field where we can observe or understand how God did things.
To me science is an investigation or observation on how things work. That of course is a very simple explanation for the sake of keeping on-track with the topic, but science is not about disproving anything by bias. Rather that is the opposite of science because science is another word for knowledge and bias is not based on knowledge, but prejudice, which is a form of a lack of knowledge.
Sorry that I haven't read the rest of your post(s). I usually just read the first part and answer or skim over them and answer something that stands out due to time restraints.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2010,20:17) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 04 2010,20:13) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,19:47) What you can do is say that there is something now, and demonstrate that there is more than there used to be in an expanding universe, then extrapolate backwards to t=0, the Big Bang, at which point you can see the maths says there was nothing.
OK, lets go back to 0.
So how do we progress to 1 from there?
Wherever 1 is, you get there through the expansion of space producing gravitational energy that is converted to matter.Stuart
Sorry Stu. But if the whole of existence was zero, then it would stay at zero because zero can't produce anything but zero. In fact it cannot produce zero either because it cannot produce.If 0 goes to 1, then there is something more than 0.
We call that something God. You just ignore it and say that there was just zero and at some point zero inflated into 1. That is fanciful thinking Stu, but the only way you can get zero to one, is to understand that there is something else besides that zero.
I can create a theory about 0. It is the product of 7+-7 for example. So now I have a theory as to how zero got there, but my theory also doesn't ignore that there had to be something else that existed in order for zero to inflate, i.e., there was a 7 and a -7 in this case. Because there was at least another number present, the conclusion should never be that zero was the absolute start, but that another influence acted on zero if zero changed.
You need to explain that influence rather than just saying that 0 became 1 as a statement of your faith. I have an explanation and you do not.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2010,20:17) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 04 2010,20:13) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,19:47) What you can do is say that there is something now, and demonstrate that there is more than there used to be in an expanding universe, then extrapolate backwards to t=0, the Big Bang, at which point you can see the maths says there was nothing.
OK, lets go back to 0.
So how do we progress to 1 from there?
Wherever 1 is, you get there through the expansion of space producing gravitational energy that is converted to matter.Stuart
Actually your answer says it all. It shows very little understanding of reality and how we need to explain influence or change. You just say it as a kind of faith statement. But an honest an inquisitive person would ask what makes 0 become 1? Obviously the zero itself cannot explain it. There is something else that makes zero move to one and what is it?You do not ask such questions because you ignore reality in this respect.
Think of it like this.
There is no driver of a car. It is stationary. Yet somehow the car moved 1km to the north. You are kinda saying that the car was there and now it is here, whereas I am saying how did the car get there as it cannot move on it's own accord. What force moved it. Who drove the car? Did the road move from under it? In other words I am looking for an explanation to something requires an explanation and you are not. Whether it is limited understanding, bias, or ignorance, the result is the same. You are not asking the right questions Stu.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
