Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain, show me exactly where I misquoted him. Or admit that you are lying again.
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 PostDocumented your selective citation to justify your agenda that the physical existence cannot be 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 PostYou 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?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 PostAgain 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.'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 PostAgain you are lying - where did I misquote Vilenkin.
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 PostAgain . . .
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd where did I speak of a religious agenda?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 PostAgain . . .
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.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 PostAgain . . .
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.
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.
JimMy 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 PostWhy 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
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 PostWhy 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
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 PostTo 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
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 PostRight 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...
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 PostIt 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.'
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.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
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment