Math, God and party Politics.

[phee]

What you just described here.... is this not the basis of all religion?

And I agree.. if this is what they are doing, it is not science, it is belief.

(I know I am opening up a floodgate here)

This is not mockery

Nor this

+1... hard for me to get into these conversations and still get work done...

But I agree with the above...

The "God in the Gaps" argument doesn't hold water, as the gaps get smaller and smaller....

Here is a question for the believers out there to ponder... If we go by some of the factors of intelligent design, in that certain things are so fundamentally complex a higher being MUST have designed it. And if God is as people say he/it is... Then He/She/It would be the most complex thing in existence... so something higher up MUST have designed Him/Her/It, by virtue of that argument. In other words... What made God?

Nor This:

You are speaking wisdom sir...

Nor this (in fact this is directly from conversations you and I have had)

There is one way I can understand the use of the word "God" in an argument such as this... if people are referring to God as "That which is unknown to us at this point" I can dig that term.

God as a personality, being, some dude, all powerful thinking thingy.... not sold on that.

I honestly see no mockery here either.

I agree completely

A "God" is one possibility amongst the infinite that are out there....

Why I lead towards Atheism with a shot of Agnostic... I know enough to know that I DONT KNOW...

This is just in this thread alone. Where have I not taken it seriously?... with the exception of the Halitosis comment meaning the universe has bad breath.

[Rev.Reverence]

Sure..your right...but so am I...

[phee]

Sure..your right...but so am I...

Can you elaborate on that good sir? I am honestly at a loss.

[Rev.Reverence]

A very large portion of your posts, are just disagreeing.

[Rev.Reverence]

You may think that the Universe having bad breath is a funny joke, but allot of peoples see more than shit when they look out the window.

[phee]

A very large portion of your posts, are just disagreeing.

If you would care to PM me... I would not mind discussing this further.... I think I quoted a few that were simply agreeing in this thread... in fact I can't think of any that were specifically disagreeing with anyone.

[Rev.Reverence]

The "God in the Gaps" argument doesn't hold water, as the gaps get smaller and smaller....

..that's why it DOES hold water...

Here is a question for the believers out there to ponder... If we go by some of the factors of intelligent design, in that certain things are so fundamentally complex a higher being MUST have designed it. And if God is as people say he/it is... Then He/She/It would be the most complex thing in existence... so something higher up MUST have designed Him/Her/It, by virtue of that argument. In other words... What made God?

(G*D IS G*D, ie. G*D made itself.){self-determined}

I don't know how many times I have personally said this.

[Rev.Reverence]

...now here, you ARE really just naysaying the thread.

Nice spin though.

[phee]

..that's why it DOES hold water...

(G*D IS G*D, ie. G*D made itself.){self-determined}

I don't know how many times I have personally said this.

Seriously... you had me a bit lost.... but yes you and I have talked about these things in the same way many times

[phee]

...now here, you ARE really just naysaying the thread.

Nice spin though.

Do you mean by agreeing with a naysayer?

[Rev.Reverence]

...now here, you ARE really just naysaying the thread.

Nice spin though.

Do you mean by agreeing with a naysayer?

[phee]

Still a bit confused... okay...

[torn asunder]

rev., phee, please take this to PMs, as it's become a personal debate between the two of you.

[phee]

If you would care to PM me... I would not mind discussing this further.... I think I quoted a few that were simply agreeing in this thread... in fact I can't think of any that were specifically disagreeing with anyone.

Already way ahead of you Mr. Torn

Thanks

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

hey, gaf, did you read the whole wiki article on loop quantum gravity? 1st thing that struck me was #3...

you're trying to use this theory for a big bang based on a mathematical singularity, when it's stated that this theory replaces the "big bang" with a "big bounce", therefore it's not really valid for your argument.

i'm going to finish reading it when i get back, i have to head out for a bit. thanks for letting me know about this, it's really interesting!

I didn't read about it on wiki but I can;t see how they could fuck up talking about this stuff. Anyway, I wasn't using the science of the thoery to back up my claim, only the math. The math involved does in fact desribe the conditions within a black hole. Which is what you said could not be done. It even describes the Universe that existed, to some extent, before this one did.

The point I was trying to make was that even though physics break down within a singularity and quantum mechanics takes over... quantum mechanics never breaks down even as far into a black hole as the "center".