Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you prove you only have one life?
It's the reason he gives so he can rationalize 1,044.22 posts per day on CF.
how do you rationalize ... clamors for attention?
HitchSlap said:If you've ever seen a human decompose after they've died, you wouldn't ask such a silly question. Based on this alone, there is no good reason to suggest there is any "life" beyond this one. Whatever was "you" before you were born, ends up the same place after "you" die.
No.It is nice to get attention, don't you think?
Does He cry for you? if so, why?Like your god wants my attention as well. However, the difference between your god and me is that I do not get mad and threaten to torture you if you do not give me some attention...
Quite impressive post count. AV cannot be accused for not replying I guess.
I'm not sure why he is repeating it again -- unless maybe it's for the attention.Considering the amount of time you spend on CF, and one could make a case that your life indeed revolves around your time spent here.
I'm not sure why he is repeating it again -- unless maybe it's for the attention.
I don't.Then how do you rationalize your post count?
Better yet, I'll take your post with a grain of sand.I dunno, I did not made his character up. Your Christian friends did, so ask them instead of me, please...
In situ said:The notion that the universe came form nothing is an old Straw Man based on linguistic confusion:
Thus ... general relativity makes the striking prediction that at a time 1/H ago, the universe was in a singular state: The distance between all "points of space" was zero; the density of matter and the curvature of spacetime was infinite. This singular state of the universe is referred to as the big bang.
Note that the nature of this singularity is that resulting from an homogenoeous contraction of spacetime down to "zero size". The big bang does not represent an contraction of space down to "zero size". The big bang does not represent an explosion of matter concentrated at a point of preexisting, nonsingular spacetime, as it is sometime depicted and its name suggest. Since spacetime structure itself is singular in the big bang, it does not make sense, either physically or mathematically, to ask the about the state "before" the big bang; there is no natural way to extend the spacetime manifold and metric beyond the big bang singularity. Thus, general relativity lead to the viewpoint that the universe began at the big bang.
-- Robert M. Wald, General Relativity, page 99.
9.1 What Is a Singularity?
Intuitively, a spacetime singularity is a "place" where the curvature "blows up" or other "pathological behavior" of the metric takes place. The difficulty in making this notion into a satisfactory, precis definition of a singularity steams from the above terms placed in quotes.
By far most serious (and, perhaps, insurmountable) difficulty arises from trying to give meaning to the idea of singularity as a "place". In all physical theories except the general relativity, the manifold and metric structure of spacetime is assumed in advance; we know the "where and when" of all spacetime events. If a physical quantity is infinite or otherwise undefined at a point in spacetime, we have no difficulties in saying that there is a singularity at that point. ... However, the situation in general relativity is completely different. Here we are trying to solve for the manifold and metric structure of spacetime itself. Since the notion of an event make physical sense only when the manifold and metric structure are defined around it, the most natural approach in general relativity is to say (as we have been doing) that a spacetime consist of a manifold M and metric g defined everywhere on M. Thus, the "big bang" singularity of the Robert-Walker solution is not considered to be part of the spacetime manifold; it is not a "place" or a "time."
...
Of course, our failure to describe a singularity as a "place" in precise mathematical terms does not in any way lessen the obvious fact that singularities exist in, say, the Robert-Walker and Schwarzschild spacetimes. It simply means that we must find other ways of characterizing a singularity.
-- Robert M. Wald, General Relativity, page 212-214.
In other words, general relativity does not claim the universe came from nothing.... nor does it claim there was something "before" the big bang. The viewpoint can equally correct be that the universe always has existed and there was no point of creation, just a change of state of the singularity at which some "time" we says, as a figure of speech, the universe "began" to exists, but it has, as figure of speech, "always" existed; the singularity had an, as figure of speech, "eternal" existence, there was no, as figure of speech, "before", there was, as figure of speech, no creation of anything and there was no creation event; or in other words, as figure of speech, the universe has predestine to be created...
It is a confusion with our language; we cannot express in our language properly what happen and "when" it happen. Point 1 relay on a linguistic confusion when it come to describing what is meant with "when" and "where".
Therefore point #1 is a Straw Man based on linguistic confusion.
That said, quantum mechanic has showed that stuff can be created from nothing...it happens all the time. The universe does not care whether or not we can grasp, understand, like or think it can do something or what rules we applies to it - it does it anyway.
For the rest, it is only the same old god of the gaps argument mixed with drivel; for instance computer are made of atoms and atoms are not Internet, so how could computer possible do what they do? They must be made of something more... like an Internet soul...
I have no comment or opinion on that,
In situ said:It is nice to get attention, don't you think? Like your god wants my attention as well. However, the difference between your god and me is that I do not get mad and threaten to torture you if you do not give me some attention...
All that was said using finite terminology is there is required something that is infinite. The argument is flawed the second you refer to space as being as it is now.
Space or the distance between anything that is infinite could not be contained as it would require a measurement.
All atoms and molecules can be measured, and the distance required for elements/matter to mix requires a measured amount of space. Even the process to clone today requires a measurement that can not be one on a whim.
How do you explain physical space by your reasoning of why any explanation of nothing came from nothing is a Straw Man Fallacy?
When you require something that is said to be infinite but is measurable?
What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution?Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer
[youtube]L6zrpBINJR0[/youtube]
Comments are disabled for this video.
That's amazing that you can explain away a infinite God requiring your attention,
but you assume evolution to be true; but without any attention to detail required from start to finish.
Your funny.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?