Is There A God ???

[numinus]

Correct.....it's A and C that are the illogical choices.

Duh uh.

Ever heard of the big bang? Try keeping up with the rest of us in the 21st century.

 

[numinus]

These are the immature and unproductive comments to which I was retaliating against......did you miss them, or is numnuts a HofP attack dog of some form?

The only retaliation I find relevant is one with an INTELLECTUAL substance. And intellectualism, as far as EVERYONE is concerned, is based on FACTS AND LOGIC.

I have been called far worse names by other morons and they are STILL morons for the effort.

 

[numinus]

Remember folks, there's no so such thing as God as typically defined, and it's quite illogical to be agnostic.
As was mentioned{and rubbished} previously, the only logical view we can hold WRT the universe is that it's eternal, it neither popped into existence out of thin air, nor did a powerful being of any form create it.

God is an imaginary concept which has no physical reference point........as such, all religious doctrines are the thoughts of men, irrational and unscientific men.

Are you even aware of 20th century cosmology???? The entire branch of physics launched by einstein's theory of relativity????

The only thing worse than a ***** is a ***** vainly trying to talk science!

 

[numinus]

hey num, you seem well versed in cosmology.

Have you ever heard of the Electric Universe, and what do you think of it?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

I know it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but I've seen all the videos and done some snooping on the 'net and I can't come up with anything concrete to refute it. It makes sense to me.

There isn't any contradiction at all.

Maxwell's equations describes any inverse-square law in terms of flux. One can imagine electric, magnetic or gravitational field as lines radiating to or from a point source in a linear, homogenous, isotropic medium much like euclidean space (or what people thought of vacuum prior to relativity). The flux would be the integral of these 'lines' passing through a differential or a closed gaussian surface.

Einstein's field equation describes all these in terms of the curvature of space-time. By definition, anything that has energy and momentum affects space-time, thus is intimately related to relativity.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Remember folks, there's no so such thing as God as typically defined, and it's quite illogical to be agnostic.
As was mentioned{and rubbished} previously, the only logical view we can hold WRT the universe is that it's eternal, it neither popped into existence out of thin air, nor did a powerful being of any form create it.

God is an imaginary concept which has no physical reference point........as such, all religious doctrines are the thoughts of men, irrational and unscientific men.

It's always nice to see a man of science speaking through his hat.

 

[Segep]

There isn't any contradiction at all.

Maxwell's equations describes any inverse-square law in terms of flux. One can imagine electric, magnetic or gravitational field as lines radiating to or from a point source in a linear, homogenous, isotropic medium much like euclidean space (or what people thought of vacuum prior to relativity). The flux would be the integral of these 'lines' passing through a differential or a closed gaussian surface.

Einstein's field equation describes all these in terms of the curvature of space-time. By definition, anything that has energy and momentum affects space-time, thus is intimately related to relativity.

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

 

[DavidHenry]

Duh uh.

Ever heard of the big bang? Try keeping up with the rest of us in the 21st century.

DUMMY.....the big bang is just the mainstream version modern cosmology promotes, there are many other cosmologists looking into the question of the universes origin, but they'll all be wrong unless they accept that it's eternal.
The trouble with the big bang is that it assumes something can come from nothing, and that's impossible.

 

[DavidHenry]

It's always nice to see a man of science speaking through his hat.

Get back to me when YOUcan provide a single piece of physical evidence for God's existence, heck, even some logical evidence would be a treat

 

[DavidHenry]

How is it illogical to be agnostic?

Because there's no evidence for God's existence, and the manner that he's typically defined grants him/it certain extraordinary powers such as being the creator of the universe and hanging out in a supernatural realm, problem is that there's no evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm, anymore than there is for God's existence.

The agnostic essentially says, "I'm unsure, and I'm waiting on compelling evidence to sway me"....however, once you understand that the concept of God and the supernatural were never possible, then it's pointless adopting this stance and it's illogical.

Suggesting that God created the universe actually explains nothing, ie, who created God etc, etc.....IOW, you open yourself to an infinite regress, and that's known as a logical fallacy, something that Numnuts is clearly oblivious to, LOL.

Asserting the universe to be eternal regardless of its dynamic form is the only logical deduction we can reach, ie, I don't expose myself to any logical fallacies when I make this assertion.....whereas ole mate Numnuts, believes something can come from nothing, and that infinite regresses are cool and highlight one's intellectual standing{laugh}

 

[DavidHenry]

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

It's a tactic known as hiding behind complexity

 

[Jenifer Johnson]

Ever heard of the big bang? .

Yes, religion posing as science.

 

[Jenifer Johnson]

The only thing worse than a ***** is a ***** vainly trying to talk science!

Or a preacher trying to pass off religion as science.

 

[Jenifer Johnson]

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

That is because if he can't dazzle you with brilliance, he will baffle you with bull ****. The sign of intelligence is the ability to explain the complex in its simplest terms.

 

[DavidHenry]

That is because if he can't dazzle you with brilliance, he will baffle you with bull ****. The sign of intelligence is the ability to explain the complex in its simplest terms.

MAGNIFICENT!!!!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Get back to me when YOUcan provide a single piece of physical evidence for God's existence, heck, even some logical evidence would be a treat

I haven't claimed to have any proof of God, have I? Hello? Are you dim? I have no way to know whether there is a god/God any more than anyone else.

Reading your posts and ol' Nums' posts, I have come to the conclusion that you two deserve each other.