@BlackBishop9319:
> So if I asked you how we got here, you would say "I don't know"?
> That would be reasonable except that you haven't tried to know. I mean, by
> laws of logic, something had to have been here forever, something had to
> have designed this world,
This is utter nonsense and it has already been addressed in #132 two weeks ago, and in more detail in #129 in this thread, but since you are obviously too lazy to read here first and think that all others have as short memories as you do here it is again, in short:
> I mean, by laws of logic, something had to have been here forever
And which "laws of logic" should that be? You were quite vocal in telling us that the universe couldn't be eternal because it has to have a creator. At the same time you tell us that "god" is indeed eternal and doesn't have to have a creator. Don't you see some inconsistency in your own argumentation?
> something had to have designed this world,
And here it is again: "my toaster was built by some company, so the universe must work the same and also have been built by someone". No, the first is not a reason for the second to be true. In fact, most of the world doesn't work like everyday experience suggests - like i have shown in #129 using the example of the Uncertainty Principle, which you ignored. Following your "logic" one could ask: "i know exactly where my football is and it can't be *here* and *there* at the same time. So why should sub-atomic particles behave different?" The answer is: because they *are* different - quite like your toaster and the universe. And because something is true for one doesn't mean it is true for the other too.
(Sadly, i expect to repeat that once 5 pages have passed.)
> "hey what are the odds the universe has exactly
That is another piece of flawed logic: you cannot make a statistical argument based on one single case. If the universe wouldn't allow for life to exist we wouldn't be here and argue why we do not exist. How many universes exist (or have existed, will exist, ...) with no life in them we don't know.
And last but not least, the epitome of ignorance:
> billions if years ago, nothing exploded and made everything
And from where do you have that? Right now, using the general theory of relativity and the non-zero Boltzmann-constant, we can calculate back to a point where numbers become infinite (approx. 14 billion years ago) and so further calculation becomes meaningless. This is called the "singularity". What was "before" (take that "before" more metaphorically because time started at that singularity and without time "before" has no meaning) - nobody knows. Among other possibilities there is:
- "something" exploded. Note: not "nothing", but since you don't have any idea of physics the difference doesn't matter anyway.
- nothing "exploded" but in fact a contraction that happened before was reversed at that point because the universe is fluctuating
And your last fallacy is: you argue from a preconceived opinion backwards: there must be a god because you believe in one and therefore you only see what meets with your opinion. Everything else is either ignored, buried under reams of quotes from a bronze-age text that states that bats are birds and whale are fish - if this was written by god he failed biology 101 - or similarly done away with.
Instead of wanting to find out the truth or get at least as close to it as possible you just make up silly stories which purport to explain everything as long as one can keep his eyes shut to ignore reality.
krasnaya
> So if I asked you how we got here, you would say "I don't know"?
> That would be reasonable except that you haven't tried to know. I mean, by
> laws of logic, something had to have been here forever, something had to
> have designed this world,
This is utter nonsense and it has already been addressed in #132 two weeks ago, and in more detail in #129 in this thread, but since you are obviously too lazy to read here first and think that all others have as short memories as you do here it is again, in short:
> I mean, by laws of logic, something had to have been here forever
And which "laws of logic" should that be? You were quite vocal in telling us that the universe couldn't be eternal because it has to have a creator. At the same time you tell us that "god" is indeed eternal and doesn't have to have a creator. Don't you see some inconsistency in your own argumentation?
> something had to have designed this world,
And here it is again: "my toaster was built by some company, so the universe must work the same and also have been built by someone". No, the first is not a reason for the second to be true. In fact, most of the world doesn't work like everyday experience suggests - like i have shown in #129 using the example of the Uncertainty Principle, which you ignored. Following your "logic" one could ask: "i know exactly where my football is and it can't be *here* and *there* at the same time. So why should sub-atomic particles behave different?" The answer is: because they *are* different - quite like your toaster and the universe. And because something is true for one doesn't mean it is true for the other too.
(Sadly, i expect to repeat that once 5 pages have passed.)
> "hey what are the odds the universe has exactly
That is another piece of flawed logic: you cannot make a statistical argument based on one single case. If the universe wouldn't allow for life to exist we wouldn't be here and argue why we do not exist. How many universes exist (or have existed, will exist, ...) with no life in them we don't know.
And last but not least, the epitome of ignorance:
> billions if years ago, nothing exploded and made everything
And from where do you have that? Right now, using the general theory of relativity and the non-zero Boltzmann-constant, we can calculate back to a point where numbers become infinite (approx. 14 billion years ago) and so further calculation becomes meaningless. This is called the "singularity". What was "before" (take that "before" more metaphorically because time started at that singularity and without time "before" has no meaning) - nobody knows. Among other possibilities there is:
- "something" exploded. Note: not "nothing", but since you don't have any idea of physics the difference doesn't matter anyway.
- nothing "exploded" but in fact a contraction that happened before was reversed at that point because the universe is fluctuating
And your last fallacy is: you argue from a preconceived opinion backwards: there must be a god because you believe in one and therefore you only see what meets with your opinion. Everything else is either ignored, buried under reams of quotes from a bronze-age text that states that bats are birds and whale are fish - if this was written by god he failed biology 101 - or similarly done away with.
Instead of wanting to find out the truth or get at least as close to it as possible you just make up silly stories which purport to explain everything as long as one can keep his eyes shut to ignore reality.
krasnaya
