The Gospel according to Stu

Participant

Yep. That's pretty close.

Stuart

April 24, 2009 at 12:16 pm#128805

Participant

Stu 1:7-10
7 One of the self aware components of something that was originally nothing went by the label, “Stu”.
8 He was 99% ape and the 1% made him human and he had a curious square shape next to his image (avatar) that had evolved there.
9 Stu was also 45% daffodil but couldn't admit that he was almost half a flower.
10 He spent his days posting to a forum on an invention called the WWW.
11 Stu somehow could grasp that virtual space was created but couldn't fathom that most of his species believed that real space was created too by reason of design and superior design at that.
12 Stu went about his days persecuting all believers and mocking this creator.
13 This self aware ape who originally came from nothing considered himself something, but preferred to believe that nothing was his Father (so to speak).
14 He agreed with another self aware unit called Hawking who was also an ape like him.
15 But he thought that the most brilliant ape of all was deluded. His name was Newton.
16 Newton considered himself a son of God and not a dirty ape.
17 The self-aware component of nothing that became something and was called Stu, was a proud ape and lived in a country where apes were not native.
18 Stu found himself out of depth when debating with some self-aware components of nothing that believed that they originally came from something.
19 So Stu the self-aware component of nothing who was by class an ape use to rant and rave all day.
20 Even though some self-aware units listened to what he had to say, they mostly did so for the entertainment that he provided.

Chapter 2….

April 25, 2009 at 9:47 am#128909

Participant

Quote

8 He was 99% ape and the 1% made him human and he had a curious square shape next to his image (avatar) that had evolved there.

No. 100% ape.

Quote

9 Stu was also 45% daffodil but couldn't admit that he was almost half a flower.

That is idiotic. The flower is only the reproductive structure of the plant.

Quote

11 Stu somehow could grasp that virtual space was created but couldn't fathom that most of his species believed that real space was created too by reason of design and superior design at that.

I can see through the illusion of design, unlike those who are closed to anything not written in an ancient book of ignorant Middle-Eastern goatherder mythology.

Quote

12 Stu went about his days persecuting all believers and mocking this creator

I persecute no one. Love the christian, oppose the nasty doctrine they have allowed themselves to be infected with. You should have practised safe critical thinking t8. This meme has a cure though. First you have to see it for what it really is. Good luck with that, the hard part. The bigoted zealots whose lame dogma you love have cleverly disabled your critical faculty.

Quote

13 This self aware ape who originally came from nothing considered himself something, but preferred to believe that nothing was his Father (so to speak).

Either you are German, or your capitalisation of Father indicates your god. Indeed I think your god is the Imaginary Friend of childhood. Even Saul of Tarsus advocated leaving behind the things of childhood although he himself was unable to do so.

Quote

17 The self-aware component of nothing that became something and was called Stu, was a proud ape and lived in a country where apes were not native.

I am proud to be an ape. I honour my ancestors properly, unlike those who seem happy to ignore the spirit of the commandment to honour their parents.

Quote

18 Stu found himself out of depth when debating with some self-aware components of nothing that believed that they originally came from something.

You don’t have the first clue about borrowed gravitational energy an asymmetrical separation of matter from antimatter. You are pig-ignorant about the things you babble on about. I suppose there is some freedom for you in lying for Jesus, but there is a commandment against that too. Saul of Tarsus would have loved your persistent spreading of ignorance, although he did say in Phil. 4:8 to think on whatever is true. Is it true that I am out of my depth? I can’t do the maths but I can follow and describe the concepts involved. What can you do t8? This would not be more hypocrisy from you, would it?

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 9:51 am#128910

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,19:35)

Quote from the Book of Stu.

NOTE: Scholars date the approximate age of this textual fragment to 2008-2009 AD.

I think Genesis 1:1 in Stu's Bible could be phrased thusly:

In the beginning was nothing, then it exploded and became everything.

April 25, 2009 at 10:04 am#128912

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2009,21:51)

Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,19:35)

Quote from the Book of Stu.

NOTE: Scholars date the approximate age of this textual fragment to 2008-2009 AD.

I think Genesis 1:1 in Stu's Bible could be phrased thusly:

In the beginning was nothing, then it exploded and became everything.

Except 'bible' is the wrong idea. It is not infallible dogma I believe in and no person's word goes automatically. That would make for an inflexible worldview with its adherents eventually forced to defend absurdities.

Much like with christianity.

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 10:10 am#128913

Participant

This could be wrong. Given the evidence we have, it is a reasonable model:

Quote

From p.97 of Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays by Stephen Hawking:

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least ten-to-the-eightieth particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is that relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Keynesian economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy will not have to be paid until the end of the universe.

Are there any objections to the science, or is it just going to be endless ignorant strawmen and ad homs?

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 10:22 am#128916

Participant

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,22:04)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2009,21:51)

Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,19:35)

Quote from the Book of Stu.

NOTE: Scholars date the approximate age of this textual fragment to 2008-2009 AD.

I think Genesis 1:1 in Stu's Bible could be phrased thusly:

In the beginning was nothing, then it exploded and became everything.

Much like with christianity.

Stuart

He he…which postulation is more absurd:

1) Someone made something out of nothing.

2) No one made something out of nothing.

April 25, 2009 at 10:51 am#128920

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2009,22:22)

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,22:04)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2009,21:51)

Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,19:35)

Quote from the Book of Stu.

NOTE: Scholars date the approximate age of this textual fragment to 2008-2009 AD.

I think Genesis 1:1 in Stu's Bible could be phrased thusly:

In the beginning was nothing, then it exploded and became everything.

Much like with christianity.

Stuart

He he…which postulation is more absurd:

1) Someone made something out of nothing.

2) No one made something out of nothing.

They are both absurd.

One is ancient goat-herder / lazy thinker mythology, the other is a strawman of modern science.

How about you read the post quoting Hawking and have a think before your next kneejerk post.

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 2:15 pm#128932

Participant

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,21:47)

I am proud to be an ape.

Hmmm. Me talking to an ape. What could that do to my image?

April 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm#128933

Participant

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,21:47)

No. 100% ape.

OK, so in the beginning there was nothing (no apes). A deficiency in nothing created 100% ape, and that will steadily decline as the universe pays back the debt of deficiency and return to zero.

So as time goes by, will we see a decline in your ape status toward that of zero (no ape) as the universe heads toward nothingness. Or will it become nothing abruptly, hence wiping away the existence of all apes?

Could be worth measuring your ape status and watch for a decline to see if prophet Hawking and your theory is correct. Perhaps you are not 100% ape. Have you had a measurement lately?

And what is less than 100% ape if the universe will steadily decline to nothingness? Will you or your offspring eventually crawl back into a puddle of water with a set of gills or breathing apparatus for water born organisms?

Perhaps evolution becomes devolution and time is not always linear and in the same direction from simple to complex. Maybe complex will become simple?

Hang on, that is already meant to be the case. So how does Evolution fit with the “everything left to itself devolves law?

I mean if there is no creator and everything is left to itself, complex should be becoming more simple, not simple becoming more complex. Because there is no management or lawgiver to organise simple things to be more complex.

My first piece of evidence I would like to point to as a possible thorn in the side of simple becoming more complex (like evolution) is yourself. Organisation breaks down when left to itself, like an apple left lying around will break down into more simple elements. Similarly, as you are left to yourself (by your own choice) and you are not interested in coming under the reign of God Almighty, so your inevitable future is to become more simple.

I think I have even observed this phenomenon in the time that you have been here too.

April 25, 2009 at 2:22 pm#128934

Participant

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,21:47)

I can see through the illusion of design, unlike those who are closed to anything not written in an ancient book of ignorant Middle-Eastern goatherder mythology.

OK, the illusion of design.

So real design which is only human in origin pales in comparison to the illusionary design of the physical universe.

Hmmmm. Doesn't compute. Doesn't compute. Smoke puff bang.

April 25, 2009 at 2:59 pm#128935

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2009,21:51)

Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,19:35)

Quote from the Book of Stu.

NOTE: Scholars date the approximate age of this textual fragment to 2008-2009 AD.

I think Genesis 1:1 in Stu's Bible could be phrased thusly:

In the beginning was nothing, then it exploded and became everything.

Yeah that is a good point.

And that this nothing that exploded and became everything just happened by reason of no influence, law, logic, or construct because to admit that is to admit that there was at least a creative force of some kind.

April 25, 2009 at 3:02 pm#128936

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,22:10)

This could be wrong. Given the evidence we have, it is a reasonable model:

Quote

From p.97 of Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays by Stephen Hawking:

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Are there any objections to the science, or is it just going to be endless ignorant strawmen and ad homs?

Stuart

Hi Stu

Quote

When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing.

Quote

And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe.

Isn't gravitational energy something?

Can you explain to me how the gravitational energy of the universe is “nothing”?

The two above statements make no sense.

April 25, 2009 at 8:56 pm#128974

Participant

Yes, where did all this matter and energy come from?

April 25, 2009 at 8:57 pm#128975

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 26 2009,02:15)

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,21:47)

I am proud to be an ape.

Hmmm. Me talking to an ape. What could that do to my image?

You are a talking ape. No speciesist snob will be able to live down that fact.

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 9:00 pm#128977

Participant

Quote

A deficiency

What ‘deficiency’?

I was right about strawmen and ad homs. Christianity: the religion of lying for your Imaginary Friend.

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 9:02 pm#128978

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 26 2009,02:22)

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,21:47)

I can see through the illusion of design, unlike those who are closed to anything not written in an ancient book of ignorant Middle-Eastern goatherder mythology.

OK, the illusion of design.

So real design which is only human in origin pales in comparison to the illusionary design of the physical universe.

Hmmmm. Doesn't compute. Doesn't compute. Smoke puff bang.

I KNOW it doesn't compute with you t8. What's new?

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 9:02 pm#128979

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 26 2009,02:59)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2009,21:51)

Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,19:35)

Quote from the Book of Stu.

NOTE: Scholars date the approximate age of this textual fragment to 2008-2009 AD.

I think Genesis 1:1 in Stu's Bible could be phrased thusly:

In the beginning was nothing, then it exploded and became everything.

Yeah that is a good point.

HOW is it a 'good point'? How can “nothing' explode?

Stuart

April 25, 2009 at 9:05 pm#128980