“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1625 May 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
bigoted hate-cultist.
Yes you are! Lol

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1626 May 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Polymath isn't a her.
See, I was fishing, and out witted you again... Lol

It's just too easy!

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1627 May 19, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Please don't lump me with them, I practice what I preach.
Yes, Leave him alone dog!

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1628 May 19, 2013
him meaning Susan... :)
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#1629 May 20, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you're also from South Africa, kan jy praat Afrikaanse?
Ja, dit is my huistaal.(yes, that is my mother tongue). Where did you learn to speak/write in Afrikaans? Must have been in the Free State!!
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#1630 May 20, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps we should investigate this first before we discuss these 'teachings'. Ok? ;)
You see I have this problem... with both Moses & Jesus.
WHY?
The quest for Biblical accounts of ancient Egypt at least into the 19th Dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, take on an interesting approach by most investigators.
Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context.
In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt.
Some specifics are very possible, such as Joseph's rise to importance in the Egyptian court.
Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult.
Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence.
For example, the Egyptians certainly recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood. Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom.
Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts.
"Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p43)
Also, for many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.
Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan' yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.
It would spoil the story!!
How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?
'Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible ...
Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites.'
John Romer, Testament
And to your original question... for you!
Can you provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do?
Can you provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs?
Hi, thanks for your kind response.
The present question is not even whether Jesus really existed (we can come to that later, as well as other claimed discrepancies in the Bible) but whether the teachings ascribed to Jesus(a fictitious person or not is immaterial)would make this faith dangerous? That was basically the gist of my question to you.
To clarify: which of the Christian teachings would make it a dangerous religion?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1631 May 20, 2013
[QUOTE who="Mary Magdalena
"]<quoted text>
Your ballon analogy has an edge and or a boundary just like the universe.[/QUOTE]

And where, exactly, is this edge or boundary?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1632 May 20, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Please don't lump me with them, I practice what I preach.
That's what we worry about.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1633 May 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

"We would say that t=0 is the 'boundary' even though only t>0 exists. That is the case in the basic BB theory"

"No, the fact that there simply *is* no t<0, but only t>0 shows that it is impossible to have a 'cause' for the beginning of time."

"Causality only happens in time, so for t>0."
WHY POLYMATH IS WRONG

I had to think a bit to make a exquisitely clear refutation. I usually do not have to think more than a few seconds to prove you wrong. So congratulations.

1. Universe Time is not Absolute Time. You have no knowledge whatsoever that establishes that it is. If you do, present it. The burden of proof is on you.

2. Causality is not required to precede effect. Even if you could show that EVERY cause - in time - precedes effect, and you cannot, you would not be showing that such is true in principle, but only in observation. You only observe in time; absent time, you do not know.

3. If a causality of the origin of the universe were undetectable, or vanished, the genesis of the universe would appear to you EXACTLY as it now does. You cannot rule such causality out by logic or physics.

4. To say that causality of the universe requires time, and that there was no time prior to the universe, therefore, there can be no causality - is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is the fallacy of circularity, or circular reasoning, as stated thus:

"If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by the first, this is known as circular definition, somewhat similar to a circular reasoning: neither offers us any enlightenment about what we wanted to know."

5. You assert that t=0 does not exist in time. But without t=0, there can never be t>0, which you say DOES exist in time.

Hence, if your principle is accepted, this is an example of causality "not in time" providing causal conditions for effect "in time".

So your argument is self-refuting.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1634 May 20, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
1. Universe Time is not Absolute Time. You have no knowledge whatsoever that establishes that it is. If you do, present it. The burden of proof is on you.
You have to show that there is something other than 'universal time'. Any evidence of such?
2. Causality is not required to precede effect. Even if you could show that EVERY cause - in time - precedes effect, and you cannot, you would not be showing that such is true in principle, but only in observation. You only observe in time; absent time, you do not know.
So it is reasonable to deduce that time is required for causality.
3. If a causality of the origin of the universe were undetectable, or vanished, the genesis of the universe would appear to you EXACTLY as it now does. You cannot rule such causality out by logic or physics.
While your fist statement is true, the second is false. A cause for the universe is ruled out by the logic of causality.
4. To say that causality of the universe requires time, and that there was no time prior to the universe, therefore, there can be no causality - is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is the fallacy of circularity, or circular reasoning, as stated thus:
"If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by the first, this is known as circular definition, somewhat similar to a circular reasoning: neither offers us any enlightenment about what we wanted to know."
Wrong. It is not a circular fallacy. It is a simple deduction:
1. Causality requires time.
2. There was no time prior to the universe
Conclusions:
3. there was no causality prior to the universe.
4. The universe is uncaused.

No circularity, only deduction.
5. You assert that t=0 does not exist in time. But without t=0, there can never be t>0, which you say DOES exist in time.
Your second statement is false. It is quite possible to have only t>0 and no t=0.
Hence, if your principle is accepted, this is an example of causality "not in time" providing causal conditions for effect "in time".
So your argument is self-refuting.
Wrong yet again. You really should have thought harder.
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#1635 May 20, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
The colonization was a good thing... So you speak Dutch, and are from South Africa?
No, not from South Africa but have extended family in Amsterdam, Bruges & Koln.

Nederlands was heel moeilijk om te leren. ;(

Deutsch war viel einfacher zu holen!

Ce alors que je travaille toujours avec!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1636 May 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to show that there is something other than 'universal time'. Any evidence of such?
<quoted text>
So it is reasonable to deduce that time is required for causality.
<quoted text>
While your fist statement is true, the second is false. A cause for the universe is ruled out by the logic of causality.
<quoted text>
Wrong. It is not a circular fallacy. It is a simple deduction:
1. Causality requires time.
2. There was no time prior to the universe
Conclusions:
3. there was no causality prior to the universe.
4. The universe is uncaused.
No circularity, only deduction.
<quoted text>
Your second statement is false. It is quite possible to have only t>0 and no t=0.
<quoted text>
Wrong yet again. You really should have thought harder.
Are you kidding me??

There is absolutely no way you are a physicist.

You do not have the intellect.

1. No, I do not have to show it. You are the one eliminating even the POSSIBILITY! You are the one relying on the fact that universe time is absolute time to do so. Your assertion falls without it. So prove it.

2. This is simply a repeat of your circularity fallacy. On top of that, you included (point 1 and 2) bald assertions for which you fail to produce proof.

3. No. It is NOT possible to have t>0 without t=0. This would render t>0 incoherent.

For your thesis to have merit, you must prove that:

(a) Causality requires time.

(b) Universe time is Absolute time.

(c) That causal order is temporal order, not observationally, but principally.

You have offered NO PROOF of any of these 3 points, only your assertions.

I do not see any reason to believe that you CAN offer such.

You lost another one to pig farmer.

It's over.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1637 May 20, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you kidding me??
There is absolutely no way you are a physicist.
You do not have the intellect.
1. No, I do not have to show it. You are the one eliminating even the POSSIBILITY! You are the one relying on the fact that universe time is absolute time to do so. Your assertion falls without it. So prove it.
Translation: I can make up any bizarre scenario that *might* provide an alternative, and *you* have to show it can't happen, even though there is no reason to think the alternative is, in fact, the case and there is no evidence for that alternative.

BS.
3. No. It is NOT possible to have t>0 without t=0. This would render t>0 incoherent.
Simply false. I tis quite possible for it to be impossible to extend t>0 to t=0 because of infinities that would be produced.
For your thesis to have merit, you must prove that:
(a) Causality requires time.
All causality we have ever seen requires time. With no evidence, it is unreasonable to assume otherwise.
(b) Universe time is Absolute time.
You haven't shown there *is* an absolute time. Without evidence, it is reasonable to assume there is only universal time.
(c) That causal order is temporal order, not observationally, but principally.
Again, without evidence, it is reasonable to assume that what we have observed is how things are.
You have offered NO PROOF of any of these 3 points, only your assertions.
I do not see any reason to believe that you CAN offer such.
You lost another one to pig farmer.
It's over.
You provide wild alternatives without any reason to think they are even potentially valid alternatives. You give no evidence to support them as possibilities. And then you claim *I* have to argue against them.

Wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1638 May 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: I can make up any bizarre scenario that *might* provide an alternative, and *you* have to show it can't happen, even though there is no reason to think the alternative is, in fact, the case and there is no evidence for that alternative.
BS.
<quoted text>
Simply false. I tis quite possible for it to be impossible to extend t>0 to t=0 because of infinities that would be produced.
<quoted text>
All causality we have ever seen requires time. With no evidence, it is unreasonable to assume otherwise.
<quoted text>
You haven't shown there *is* an absolute time. Without evidence, it is reasonable to assume there is only universal time.
<quoted text>
Again, without evidence, it is reasonable to assume that what we have observed is how things are.
<quoted text>
You provide wild alternatives without any reason to think they are even potentially valid alternatives. You give no evidence to support them as possibilities. And then you claim *I* have to argue against them.
Wrong.
Yours is the pleading of a drowning man.

1. No "bizarre scenario" is involved, nor would it be relevant. You are the promulgator of a series of DEFINITE FACT, namely, that causality requires time, and thus is NOT PRESENT for the origins of the universe.

This is a positive assertion. I am not fooled by your evasion about "bizarre scenarios".

2. "It is quite possible for it to be impossible to extend t>0 to t=0"

You moved the goalposts. You did not say it was possible, you said it as a fact.

3. Even if it were "reasonable to assume" that there is no time other than universal time, again, your thesis is not that it is "reasonable". Your thesis is that it is a known fact.

In FACT, your assertion DEPENDS on it being a FACT.
----------

When you lost this argument, you began the same ole' Polymath shifting sand tap dance.

Having argued your position as fact, and lost, you now characterize your position as simply one of negating an argument someone else has made, and presenting an argument in the realm of possibility.

You know Buck. Did you think Buck would not catch that?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1639 May 20, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yours is the pleading of a drowning man.
1. No "bizarre scenario" is involved, nor would it be relevant. You are the promulgator of a series of DEFINITE FACT, namely, that causality requires time, and thus is NOT PRESENT for the origins of the universe.
This is a positive assertion. I am not fooled by your evasion about "bizarre scenarios".
2. "It is quite possible for it to be impossible to extend t>0 to t=0"
You moved the goalposts. You did not say it was possible, you said it as a fact.
3. Even if it were "reasonable to assume" that there is no time other than universal time, again, your thesis is not that it is "reasonable". Your thesis is that it is a known fact.
In FACT, your assertion DEPENDS on it being a FACT.
----------
When you lost this argument, you began the same ole' Polymath shifting sand tap dance.
Having argued your position as fact, and lost, you now characterize your position as simply one of negating an argument someone else has made, and presenting an argument in the realm of possibility.
You know Buck. Did you think Buck would not catch that?
No, my thesis has never been that it is a known fact. It has been that this is what the basic BB theory asserts and that this possibility is supported by the evidence we have.

In fact, I have explicitly presented alternative theories

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1640 May 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

No, my thesis has never been that it is a known fact. It has been that this is what the basic BB theory asserts and that this possibility is supported by the evidence we have.
Well, then I'll paste your own words for you.
----------

Post #1583

Polymath:

"No, the fact that there simply *is* no t<0, but only t>0 shows that it is impossible to have a 'cause' for the beginning of time."
----------

Post #1493

Polymath: "Given the nature of causality, the universe *cannot* have a cause because causes are always *in* the universe."

(Notice the factuality of this response, and also that the rationale used is not BB Theory, but "the nature of causality")
----------

(And if that is not factual enough, here is Polymath in post #1480.

It leaves no doubt.

Polymath:

"All causality occurs in time. Coincidental causality (which isn't a coherent concept) still requires time to happen, so is still part of the universe. The universe itself cannot be caused."
----------

You should know by now, when I have you beaten, and you start trying to weasel out of it, it only gets worse for you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1641 May 20, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, then I'll paste your own words for you.
----------
Post #1583
Polymath:
"No, the fact that there simply *is* no t<0, but only t>0 shows that it is impossible to have a 'cause' for the beginning of time."
----------
Post #1493
Polymath: "Given the nature of causality, the universe *cannot* have a cause because causes are always *in* the universe."
(Notice the factuality of this response, and also that the rationale used is not BB Theory, but "the nature of causality")
----------
(And if that is not factual enough, here is Polymath in post #1480.
It leaves no doubt.
Polymath:
"All causality occurs in time. Coincidental causality (which isn't a coherent concept) still requires time to happen, so is still part of the universe. The universe itself cannot be caused."
----------
You should know by now, when I have you beaten, and you start trying to weasel out of it, it only gets worse for you.
Let me be clear then. The basic BB theory only has t>0 and not t<=0. In this theory, the universe has no cause.

Next, yes, I do claim that all causality occurs in time. We have absolutely no evidence of any other type of causality nor any reason to think it might exist. If you have evidence otherwise, let us know.

Next, yes, I do claim that it is self-contradictory to talk about the cause of time because of the above.

Whether the universe has a cause or not depends in part on how you define the term 'universe' and whether the basic BB theory is correct or not. IF the basic theory is correct, then the universe is uncaused and is coterminous with time.

On the other hand, there are *other* theories (string theory, LQG, etc) that allow for t<0 to make sense. In this case, there are two possible interpretations of the term 'universe': one is simply the current expansion phase. IF a theory with t<0 is the case, then it is *possible*(not not certain), that the current expansion phase (the universe) is caused. HOWEVER, these extensions essentially postulate some sort of 'multiverse' and in this case, the multiverse has no cause, again because it is coterminous with time.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1642 May 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me be clear then. The basic BB theory only has t>0 and not t<=0. In this theory, the universe has no cause.
Next, yes, I do claim that all causality occurs in time. We have absolutely no evidence of any other type of causality nor any reason to think it might exist. If you have evidence otherwise, let us know.
Next, yes, I do claim that it is self-contradictory to talk about the cause of time because of the above.
Whether the universe has a cause or not depends in part on how you define the term 'universe' and whether the basic BB theory is correct or not. IF the basic theory is correct, then the universe is uncaused and is coterminous with time.
On the other hand, there are *other* theories (string theory, LQG, etc) that allow for t<0 to make sense. In this case, there are two possible interpretations of the term 'universe': one is simply the current expansion phase. IF a theory with t<0 is the case, then it is *possible*(not not certain), that the current expansion phase (the universe) is caused. HOWEVER, these extensions essentially postulate some sort of 'multiverse' and in this case, the multiverse has no cause, again because it is coterminous with time.
That is incorrect, and incorrect for the same reasons it was incorrect when you said it earlier.

In the BB Theory, it is A FALSE STATEMENT to say the universe has no cause, for reasons I outlined, namely, that you do not know if time as prescribed by the BB is absolute time, you do not know if causality, in principle, requires time, and you do not know if all potential causality is detectable.

What we do know, IN PRINCIPLE, indicates the opposite, which is, that something that begins to exist REQUIRES cause. You offer exception to that with no facts.

Your only objection is reduced to an observational bias and your attempted expansion of that bias into principle.

Absent a fact-based rationale to uphold your exception, it is rightly maintained that the PRINCIPLE stands, which is:

That which begins to exist has a cause.

Now, here is what will happen.

You will now abandon a logical argument and embark on a technical dissertation of physics and the Big Bang which you feel will extricate you from losing this argument.



KJV

United States

#1643 May 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
[QUOTE who="Mary Magdalena
"]<quoted text>
Your ballon analogy has an edge and or a boundary just like the universe. "

We have been looking for thousands of years, lately with highly sophisticated and enormous magnification capabilities, some using mirrors cooled to nearly absolute zero to gather even the faintest of light from hundreds of light years away. We stared into nothing for 10+ days gathering all the light possible. We still have not found an edge or hint of a boundary, and if there even is one .
It is so far away we will never see it, the balloon analogy is only a way to imagine it, but the image it tell us something different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mcBV-cXVWFwXX
Yup you're the size of atom on earth and the edge is some where out past Pluto and you think you should see a colorless, lightless, energyless, matterless, edge of another dimension in your mirror?

LOL. Keep looking! LOL!!
KJV

United States

#1644 May 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="Mary Magdalena
"]<quoted text>
Your ballon analogy has an edge and or a boundary just like the universe. "

And where, exactly, is this edge or boundary?
You don't know?

The edge of the universe is where it meets nothing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 14 min Uncle Sam 239,234
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min MikeF 19,048
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 7,417
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr Pahu 2,187
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 5 hr prophecydotorg 7,469
News New Atheism's fatal arrogance: The glaring inte... 7 hr EdSed 5
News Number of Christians Decline 'Unaffiliated' Ris... 7 hr EdSed 5
More from around the web