Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I said dishonestly selectively citing Vilenkin, and yes you justify your belief that our physical existence cannot be eternal based ONLY on a selective citing of Vilenkin, and then you reject Vilenkin's belief that the evidence supports the beginning of our universe out of Quantum nothing, and the existence of multiverses. In your selective citing you off hand reject the possibility of alternatives proposed by other scientists that the universe may be cyclic and eternal just because you claim Vilenkin says so.
    Again, show me exactly where I misquoted him. Or admit that you are lying again.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Again, show me exactly where I misquoted him. Or admit that you are lying again.
      I documented your selective citation to justify your agenda that the physical existence cannot be eternal many times, which is unethical in science. Your posts clearly argued with selective citations that the scientific Quantum nothing is equivalent to the philosophical nothing of 'ex nhilo.' You cited a publication by Vilenkin describing the beginning o our universe, as supporting the beginning of our physical existence and Vilenkin never intended that be the case.

      Selective citing to justify an agenda is not the same as misquoting. It is misrepresenting the science of physics and cosmology to justify your belief.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-17-2017, 05:46 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Documented your selective citation to justify your agenda that the physical existence cannot be eternal.
        You are lying again, I said that according to Vilenkin that neither the multiverse or the cyclical universe can be past eternal.

        http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

        http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

        And where did I speak of a religious agenda?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          You are lying again, I said that according to Vilenkin that neither the multiverse or the cyclical universe can be past eternal.

          http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

          http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

          And where did I speak of a religious agenda?
          Again So what?!?!?! Vilenkin does not represent all the cosmologists. This view reflects your selective citation to support you view of 'ex nhilo' and the origin of our physical existence from 'absolute nothing.'
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Again So what?!?!?! Vilenkin does not represent all the cosmologists. This view reflects your selective citation to support you view of 'ex nhilo' and the origin of our physical existence from 'absolute nothing.'
            Again you are lying - where did I misquote Vilenkin.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Again you are lying - where did I misquote Vilenkin.
              Again . . .

              I documented your selective citation to justify your agenda that the physical existence cannot be eternal many times, which is unethical in science. Your posts clearly argued with selective citations that the scientific Quantum nothing is equivalent to the philosophical nothing of 'ex nhilo.' You cited a publication by Vilenkin describing the beginning o our universe, as supporting the beginning of our physical existence and Vilenkin never intended that be the case.

              Selective citing to justify an agenda is not the same as misquoting. It is misrepresenting the science of physics and cosmology to justify your belief.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Again . . .

                I documented your selective citation to justify your agenda that the physical existence cannot be eternal many times, which is unethical in science. Your posts clearly argued with selective citations that the scientific Quantum nothing is equivalent to the philosophical nothing of 'ex nhilo.' You cited a publication by Vilenkin describing the beginning o our universe, as supporting the beginning of our physical existence and Vilenkin never intended that be the case.

                Selective citing to justify an agenda is not the same as misquoting. It is misrepresenting the science of physics and cosmology to justify your belief.
                so do it again with actual quotes and reference. cite where he did what you keep claiming? post numbers. Your gas lighting is hilarious. we can all read the thread.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  And where did I speak of a religious agenda?
                  In shunya's mind, if you're a Christian, that means you're always arguing to justify your religious agenda. People without a religious agenda would be agreeing with him.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Again . . .

                    I documented your selective citation to justify your agenda that the physical existence cannot be eternal many times, which is unethical in science. Your posts clearly argued with selective citations that the scientific Quantum nothing is equivalent to the philosophical nothing of 'ex nhilo.' You cited a publication by Vilenkin describing the beginning o our universe, as supporting the beginning of our physical existence and Vilenkin never intended that be the case.

                    Selective citing to justify an agenda is not the same as misquoting. It is misrepresenting the science of physics and cosmology to justify your belief.
                    Let's face it Shuny the idea of creation ex nihilo scares the crap out of you since it would undermine your religious beliefs.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Again . . .

                      I documented your selective citation to justify your agenda that the physical existence cannot be eternal many times, which is unethical in science. Your posts clearly argued with selective citations that the scientific Quantum nothing is equivalent to the philosophical nothing of 'ex nhilo.' You cited a publication by Vilenkin describing the beginning o our universe, as supporting the beginning of our physical existence and Vilenkin never intended that be the case.

                      Selective citing to justify an agenda is not the same as misquoting. It is misrepresenting the science of physics and cosmology to justify your belief.
                      Why are you allowed to claim that those arguing with you are speaking 'to justify their religious belief', discounting their claims to the contrary, yet you yourself expect others to believe your claim you are not arguing to justify your religious belief.

                      To avoid hypocrisy, you must either accept their assessment you are arguing to justify you religious position, or you must accept their claim they are NOT arguing from a religious position as equivalent to your own, unless you can cite clear evidence from this thread that shows they are. That evidence should be distinct and clear in character, and not have any similar analogues in your own posts.

                      If your claims they are arguing from a religious position are based on past experience with them in other threads, then likewise you must allow for them to be assessing your motivations from previous interactions with you in other threads.



                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Why are you allowed to claim that those arguing with you are speaking 'to justify their religious belief', discounting their claims to the contrary, yet you yourself expect others to believe your claim you are not arguing to justify your religious belief.

                        To avoid hypocrisy, you must either accept their assessment you are arguing to justify you religious position, or you must accept their claim they are NOT arguing from a religious position as equivalent to your own, unless you can cite clear evidence from this thread that shows they are. That evidence should be distinct and clear in character, and not have any similar analogues in your own posts.

                        If your claims they are arguing from a religious position are based on past experience with them in other threads, then likewise you must allow for them to be assessing your motivations from previous interactions with you in other threads.



                        Jim
                        There are no previous threads nor posts where I argued that the present theories and hypothesis of the science of cosmology and physics supports my belief in Baha'i cosmology.

                        No hypocricy here . . . No one has cited where this is the case. Can you cite any post or thread where I have done this? The ball is in your court with your accusation above.

                        Still waiting . . .

                        I can cite seer where he equates the Quantum nothing in his interpretation (not that of the physicists and cosmologists) can be interpreted as the absolute nothing of 'exnhilo' in terms of his biased citation and interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

                        More to follow . . .
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-18-2017, 02:36 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Why are you allowed to claim that those arguing with you are speaking 'to justify their religious belief', discounting their claims to the contrary, yet you yourself expect others to believe your claim you are not arguing to justify your religious belief.

                          To avoid hypocrisy, you must either accept their assessment you are arguing to justify you religious position, or you must accept their claim they are NOT arguing from a religious position as equivalent to your own, unless you can cite clear evidence from this thread that shows they are. That evidence should be distinct and clear in character, and not have any similar analogues in your own posts.

                          If your claims they are arguing from a religious position are based on past experience with them in other threads, then likewise you must allow for them to be assessing your motivations from previous interactions with you in other threads.



                          Jim
                          To add Jim. here is an an example, of which there are many, where seer uses a selective citation of Vilenkin to justify a theist agenda, which in reality does not agree with Vilenkin nor any cosmologists cited if you take their work as a whole. In fact they deny there is any possible correlation between the Quantum nothing and the philosophical absolute nothing described as 'ex nhilo.'

                          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Ethics/page10 post#99

                          Originally posted by seer

                          Yes but that tell us two things Tass, Vilenkin is moving closer to creation ex nihilo (literally nothing), and two, as he mentions in your link, there are no viable models for matter and energy being past eternal.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-18-2017, 09:27 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            To add Jim. here is an an example, of which there are many, where seer uses a selective citation of Vilenkin to justify a theist agenda, which in reality does not agree with Vilenkin nor any cosmologists cited if you take their work as a whole. In fact they deny there is any possible correlation between the Quantum nothing and the philosophical absolute nothing described as 'ex nhilo.'

                            http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Ethics/page10 post#99
                            Right Shuny, and that is exactly what Vilenkin is saying - creation from literally nothing - his words not mine: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhLB..117...25V

                            And why isn't creation from literally nothing close to creation ex nihilo? As I stated?


                            No preexisting time, space or matter. And that neither the cyclical universe or multiverse can be past eternal, they both need a BEGINNING:

                            http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

                            To quote Vilenkin:

                            An Unaddressable Mystery

                            The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.

                            http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

                            So again Shuny, show me where I misquoted Vilenkin, where he states that there is a viable model for a past eternal universe or multiverse. I will be waiting...
                            Last edited by seer; 11-19-2017, 06:25 AM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Right Shuny, and that is exactly what Vilenkin is saying - creation from literally nothing - his words not mine: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhLB..117...25V

                              And why isn't creation from literally nothing close to creation ex nihilo? As I stated?
                              It is not I that says this. By far most if not virtually all the scientists including Vilenkin reject any possible association of the Quantum nothing with the absolute nothing of 'ex nhilo.'


                              No preexisting time, space or matter. And that neither the cyclical universe or multiverse can be past eternal, they both need a BEGINNING:

                              http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

                              To quote Vilenkin:

                              An Unaddressable Mystery

                              The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.

                              http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

                              So again Shuny, show me where I misquoted Vilenkin, where he states that there is a viable model for a past eternal universe or multiverse. I will be waiting...
                              My citation justified my view that your selective unethical citing one scientist to represent the science of physics and cosmology to support your theist agenda, which at times you have denied. Then you reject the over all conclusions of Vilenkin, Guth and others that there is no evidence supporting the origin of the universe from the Quantum nothing, and the possible existence of multiverses.

                              You misrepresented Vilenkin and the science of physics and cosmology with your unethical selective citation. Your biased theistic agenda is hereby documented. Sparko, Oximud and you have failed to cite any reference in the threads or my posts that I claim that the known science of physics and cosmology supports my Baha'i cosmology, but you repeatedly assert this without references. Still waiting . . .

                              Still waiting for Oximudd to respond to the problem of his false accusation.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-19-2017, 09:10 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                It is not I that says this. By far most if not virtually all the scientists including Vilenkin reject any possible association of the Quantum nothing with the absolute nothing of 'ex nhilo.'
                                What does literally nothing mean Shuny? And Vilenkin, and Ellis and Krauss speak of creation with no preexisting space or time. Where would your "quantum nothing" preexist without space - be specific please. What I said was perfectly valid - that this is CLOSE to creation ex nihilo. How exactly is "literally nothing" not close to creation out of nothing?



                                My citation justified my view that your selective unethical citing one scientist to represent the science of physics and cosmology to support your theist agenda, which at times you have denied. Then you reject the over all conclusions of Vilenkin, Guth and others that there is no evidence supporting the origin of the universe from the Quantum nothing, and the possible existence of multiverses.

                                You misrepresented Vilenkin and the science of physics and cosmology with your unethical selective citation. Your biased theistic agenda is hereby documented. Sparko, Oximud and you have failed to cite any reference in the threads or my posts that I claim that the known science of physics and cosmology supports my Baha'i cosmology, but you repeatedly assert this without references. Still waiting . . .

                                Still waiting for Oximudd to respond to the problem of his false accusation.
                                You are lying about me again Shuny, I did not misquote Vilenkin, he is perfectly clear, there are no models that get us to an eternal past for a universe or multiverse. Now everyone can read the references and judge you to be the deceiver that you are. And I did not say that a multiverse is not possible, only that according to Vilenkin and Guth BTW - it CAN NOT be eternal into the past. "Can not" - Vilenkin's words not mine.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X