report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Religious Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #19  
Old 12-18-2010, 02:34 AM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I'm not giving up the ship because of a stormy sea. It's kind of like the stock market. When the experts are certain of a market trend, it goes the other way. Since science can't explain the origin of the universe, "God did it."

You have to admit I have the most bizarre religious theory on the planet. For that, I should get the "Nutcase" award of the year. Do I have a chance, the years almost at an end?
I understand but I have to ask because your "default" god hypothesis is held without one piece of empirical data or evidence. See how that might throw some of us?
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.


Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 12-18-2010, 09:03 AM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,852
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
I understand but I have to ask because your "default" god hypothesis is held without one piece of empirical data or evidence. See how that might throw some of us?
There is no empirical evidence for a scientific explanation of the universe. Thus, neither side has a persuasive argument.

The best I've seen from science is the multiple universe theory (Hawking, 2010). That is totally ridiculous idea with much esoteric science attached.


Last edited by Cnance : 12-18-2010 at 09:15 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #21  
Old 12-18-2010, 03:42 PM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
There is no empirical evidence for a scientific explanation of the universe. Thus, neither side has a persuasive argument.
Well, you do have something of a point there, but it is not a very good one. Firstly, what there is hard empirical evidence for is that every single principle ever eludicated by science has had a naturalistic explanation, and no invocation of deities has thus far been necessary. Secondly, there is a heuristic (a method for approaching a problem) known as the principle of parsimony, better known as Occam's Razor. Now, this principle is often seriously misunderstood. Many think that it's a principle of simplicity. It isn't. It's a principle of economy. What it states, in essence, is that when choosing between competing hypotheses, the one that invokes the fewest entities, or makes the fewest unsupported assumptions, is the one to choose until such time as those assumptions become justified or necessary.

A proper example, and one of my favourites, is to talk about automobiles. We have the competing hypotheses 'automobiles operate by means of an internal combustion engine and a series of gears' versus 'automobiles operate by means of an internal combustion engine, a series of gears, and a gang of pixies pushing from behind'. Only when hypotheses are this close can Occam's Razor be properly applied.

Now, with reference to what I said about empirical evidence supporting testable natural processes being sufficient to account for every phenomenon elucidated by science, we now have the competing hypotheses 'our local cosmic expansion runs on, and was caused by, entirely natural processes' versus 'our local cosmic expansion runs on, and was caused by, entirely natural processes plus a deity'. The latter comes under the rubric of Occam's Razor, as it is unparsimonious, and will remain so until it becomes justified or necessary.

Quote:
The best I've seen from science is the multiple universe theory (Hawking, 2010).
That idea isn't unique to Hawking, and indeed there are several models that contain multiple cosmic instantiations.

Quote:
That is totally ridiculous idea with much esoteric science attached.
One might think so at first glance, and youo might well say that it's unparsimonious, and that you're justified in invoking Occam's Razor in this instance. You'd be wrong, though, and here's why:

Given a natural mechanism for cosmic instantiation, there is no reason why it couldn't happen again, or at least, not one that we've come up with. On the other hand, given those natural mechanisms, what would be required for ours to be the only one is a barrier to it happening again. This constitutes an additional, unnecessary entity, and it is this barrier that comes under the rubric of Occam's Razor on this occasion.

Certainly this model, and indeed all the models we currently have on the table, are rooted in some very esoteric science. I don't see how that's remotely an argument against them unless you can understand the science and find flaws.


As for which model is the best for cosmic instantiation, I currently favour the Turok/Steinhardt 'brane-worlds' model, because it is, at bottom quite parsimonious. It is highly speculative at the moment, but it has made predictions that are, in principle, testable.

Here's a very quick précis by Turok himself.

Horizon: Do You Know What Time It Is? (Part 4 of 6)

Either way, ALL of these models are rooted in established scientific principles, albeit with some very advanced (and even incomplete, in some cases) mathematics. This is, again, not a reason to think that they're wrong. Indeed, the principles upon which your comuter operates had precisely the same status for many years before they were demonstrated to be in accord with reality, and that they are in accord with reality is beautifully demonstrated by the fact that we are having this conversation.

In short, you are employing a 'god of the gaps' argument, and it isn't a good one.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell



Reply With Quote

  #22  
Old 12-18-2010, 06:17 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,852
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
Well, you do have something of a point there, but it is not a very good one. Firstly, what there is hard empirical evidence for is that every single principle ever eludicated by science has had a naturalistic explanation, and no invocation of deities has thus far been necessary. Secondly, there is a heuristic (a method for approaching a problem) known as the principle of parsimony, better known as Occam's Razor. Now, this principle is often seriously misunderstood. Many think that it's a principle of simplicity. It isn't. It's a principle of economy. What it states, in essence, is that when choosing between competing hypotheses, the one that invokes the fewest entities, or makes the fewest unsupported assumptions, is the one to choose until such time as those assumptions become justified or necessary.

A proper example, and one of my favourites, is to talk about automobiles. We have the competing hypotheses 'automobiles operate by means of an internal combustion engine and a series of gears' versus 'automobiles operate by means of an internal combustion engine, a series of gears, and a gang of pixies pushing from behind'. Only when hypotheses are this close can Occam's Razor be properly applied.

Now, with reference to what I said about empirical evidence supporting testable natural processes being sufficient to account for every phenomenon elucidated by science, we now have the competing hypotheses 'our local cosmic expansion runs on, and was caused by, entirely natural processes' versus 'our local cosmic expansion runs on, and was caused by, entirely natural processes plus a deity'. The latter comes under the rubric of Occam's Razor, as it is unparsimonious, and will remain so until it becomes justified or necessary.

That idea isn't unique to Hawking, and indeed there are several models that contain multiple cosmic instantiations.

One might think so at first glance, and youo might well say that it's unparsimonious, and that you're justified in invoking Occam's Razor in this instance. You'd be wrong, though, and here's why:

Given a natural mechanism for cosmic instantiation, there is no reason why it couldn't happen again, or at least, not one that we've come up with. On the other hand, given those natural mechanisms, what would be required for ours to be the only one is a barrier to it happening again. This constitutes an additional, unnecessary entity, and it is this barrier that comes under the rubric of Occam's Razor on this occasion.

Certainly this model, and indeed all the models we currently have on the table, are rooted in some very esoteric science. I don't see how that's remotely an argument against them unless you can understand the science and find flaws.


As for which model is the best for cosmic instantiation, I currently favour the Turok/Steinhardt 'brane-worlds' model, because it is, at bottom quite parsimonious. It is highly speculative at the moment, but it has made predictions that are, in principle, testable.

Here's a very quick précis by Turok himself.

Horizon: Do You Know What Time It Is? (Part 4 of 6)

Either way, ALL of these models are rooted in established scientific principles, albeit with some very advanced (and even incomplete, in some cases) mathematics. This is, again, not a reason to think that they're wrong. Indeed, the principles upon which your comuter operates had precisely the same status for many years before they were demonstrated to be in accord with reality, and that they are in accord with reality is beautifully demonstrated by the fact that we are having this conversation.

In short, you are employing a 'god of the gaps' argument, and it isn't a good one.
I don't accept a "god of the gaps" argument, even though you may have mathematical models that disputes that assertion. How do we have "god of the gaps when he are not discussing a chain of events? We are discussing one event, that is the beginning of all events.

It goes back to a simple question: How did something come from nothing?


Last edited by Cnance : 12-18-2010 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 12-18-2010, 07:22 PM
Ol Slow Poke Ol Slow Poke is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 183
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post

It goes back to a simple question: How did something come from nothing?
A very poignant question. The how could god exist before anything else??

Fact is, there are always going to be things that humans just can't, or will never grasp because they are outside our realms of reasoning.

Cheers, Pokey

Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 12-19-2010, 12:34 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post

It goes back to a simple question: How did something come from nothing?
We dont know there was nothing. Its a falacious argument to say we dont know, so it was god.

That hasnt worked for humanity ever before, lightning, the sun, disease. ie everything we didnt understand was once thought to be a god or supernatural. Never was.

And your god must have come from somewhere too. Who was his creator? Makes no sense.

Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 12-19-2010, 04:15 AM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I don't accept a "god of the gaps" argument, even though you may have mathematical models that disputes that assertion. How do we have "god of the gaps when he are not discussing a chain of events? We are discussing one event, that is the beginning of all events.

It goes back to a simple question: How did something come from nothing?
You don't accept a "god of the gaps" argument?....Well then, stop employing it as your belief process.

Unlike science, you can't prove or support any of your beliefs with even this first bit of evidence but yet, you demand a fully documented explanation presented. Based on your ability to dismiss science, my feeling is, you would just dismiss it when it happens.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 12-19-2010, 04:16 AM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by emad View Post
I believe that God created the Earth and the universe by intricate design and I believe that the Earth was supposedly created in 7 days by God as it says in Quran
Believe what you wish but, you cannot offer any proof of the belief and, to the contrary, much proof exists to prove you wrong.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 12-19-2010, 06:53 AM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,852
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
You don't accept a "god of the gaps" argument?....Well then, stop employing it as your belief process.

Unlike science, you can't prove or support any of your beliefs with even this first bit of evidence but yet, you demand a fully documented explanation presented. Based on your ability to dismiss science, my feeling is, you would just dismiss it when it happens.
If you recall, I have listened to all of you about EVVVVVVVV, and I have changed some of my views because of our discussion. Even though the is evidence for EVVVVVVV that doesn't mean I must give up my belief in God. However, because I have a strong "objective" streak, I would pay serious attention to a scientific explanation for creation. I just don't think it's possible to cross that barrier ----- proving something came from nothing.

Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 12-19-2010, 06:53 AM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I don't accept a "god of the gaps" argument, even though you may have mathematical models that disputes that assertion.
It is a 'god of the gaps', because your only justification for asserting the existence of a creator is our lack of knowledge about what processes brought our cosmic expansion into existence. In every single case so far of a process being attributed to a deity, and that process being elucidated by observational science, the deity has been shown to be unnecessary. There is no good reason to think that cosmic instantiation is any different. Indeed, to assert that it is any different is teetering on the edge of the fallacy of special pleading.

Quote:
How do we have "god of the gaps when he are not discussing a chain of events? We are discussing one event, that is the beginning of all events.
Well, that's a fallacy of bare assertion anyway. Firstly, whatever preceded our cosmic expansion is part of the universe. Indeed, there can be only one universe, because that's what the word means. Of course, we all know the arguments about infinite regress, etc, but in reality there isn't actually a problem with infinite regress. More importantly, though, our current models for cosmic instantiation quite probably halt the regress, by providing a base state for the universe. Either way, there is no justification for positing an entity that violates Occam's Razor.

I know you haven't actually erected this argument, but I just thought I's head it off at the pass, as it were.

Secondly, that 'one event' is one event in a chain, and your assertion that it was the first event is not supported by anything other than your wish that it be so, constituting yet another fallacy of bare assertion.

Quote:
It goes back to a simple question: How did something come from nothing?
Ah, here's the real problem. Who said anything about something coming from nothing? Certainly not science, for the very simple reason that 'nothing' is an invalid and impossible concept, as elucidated by quantum mechanics. There can't be any such thing as 'nothing', because it would constitute a zero field, which is prohibited by the Uncertainty Principle which, again, is at the root of the technology you are employing to post on this forum. Bear in mind that Quantum Field Theory is the most accurate theory in the history of human thought, being accurate to a resolution of 15 decimal places when its predictions are compared with observations. Indeed, it is quantum field theory that is invoked when people talk about the accuracy of Quantum Mechanics being comparable to estimating the distance from New York to Los Angeles to within the breadth of a human hair.

Further, our current candidate models all provide a 'something' for the cosmos to have arisen from, whether by the input of e n e r g y from the collision of poly-dimensional 'branes', or by quantum fluctuations (something that are empirically well-founded). Not only that, and at the risk of committing the fallacy of composition, something from nothing would appear to be in direct violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which in our cosmos is inviolable. Of course, and with reference to my previous concern about committing a fallacy, it may be that cosmic instantiation is not subject to this law, but to suggest that it is not is at least as fallacious, if not more so, because that idea commits other, more formal fallacies.

In reality, the only model for cosmic instantiation that involves ex nihilo creation is yours, so this question needs to be levelled at your own model.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 12-19-2010, 07:02 AM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,852
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
We dont know there was nothing. Its a falacious argument to say we dont know, so it was god.

That hasnt worked for humanity ever before, lightning, the sun, disease. ie everything we didnt understand was once thought to be a god or supernatural. Never was.

And your god must have come from somewhere too. Who was his creator? Makes no sense.
God didn't have a creator, that's why He is God.

God is the absence of time. Time started at the point at which it could be measured. That was at the beginning of the universe. As matter decays or changes form time is the measure of that process. For God, there is no decay or change in substance and because God has always been, there is no reference point from which to measure God. That's why God knows the end of all things because He is circular, thus being both the beginning and the end.

Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 12-19-2010, 07:44 AM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

So we can add time to the list of things you need to learn about. I'll come back and deal with that presently. Suffice it to say that the above contains temporal and causal references aplenty, considering the brevity of your post, all of which make your assertion contradictory in the extreme.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Reply With Quote

  #31  
Old 12-19-2010, 11:26 AM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,852
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
So we can add time to the list of things you need to learn about. I'll come back and deal with that presently. Suffice it to say that the above contains temporal and causal references aplenty, considering the brevity of your post, all of which make your assertion contradictory in the extreme.
State your objections with unambiguous language.

What can you teach me?

Reply With Quote

  #32  
Old 12-19-2010, 11:53 AM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
State your objections with unambiguous language.
I did. Your posts asserts that time doesn't apply to god, all the while using temporal references, contradicting that assertion.

Quote:
What can you teach me?
What our best model of time is and what empirical evidence there is to support it.

I can't do it right now, because it's going to be a long post and time is short.

I'll come back and give you a proper introduction to relativity, using only mathematics that you should be reasonably familiar with, and demonstrate what time actually is, according to our best and most accurate scientific model.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Reply With Quote

  #33  
Old 12-19-2010, 12:35 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,852
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
It is a 'god of the gaps', because your only justification for asserting the existence of a creator is our lack of knowledge about what processes brought our cosmic expansion into existence. In every single case so far of a process being attributed to a deity, and that process being elucidated by observational science, the deity has been shown to be unnecessary.
Yes, assuming God had a flawless design, he would let his creation tend to it.

Quote:
There is no good reason to think that cosmic instantiation is any different. Indeed, to assert that it is any different is teetering on the edge of the fallacy of special pleading.
That's obfuscation. What do you mean "fallacy of special pleading?" I'm not pleading for anything. I simple asked a question. It is the key to this whole issue. Before, you can convince the world that God didn't make the universe, you must provide and theory and empirical evidence that factor X did it.

Quote:
Well, that's a fallacy of bare assertion anyway. Firstly, whatever preceded our cosmic expansion is part of the universe. Indeed, there can be only one universe, because that's what the word means. Of course, we all know the arguments about infinite regress, etc, but in reality there isn't actually a problem with infinite regress. More importantly, though, our current models for cosmic instantiation quite probably halt the regress, by providing a base state for the universe. Either way, there is no justification for positing an entity that violates Occam's Razor.
I am applying simple logic, not a scientific equation. Therefore, I am not adhering to requirements of parsimony, primarily because to do so would infer a set of variables to calculate. If there was nothing before there was something (matter), we have no basis for calculations.

Quote:
I know you haven't actually erected this argument, but I just thought I's head it off at the pass, as it were.
I don't know what you heading off. I have not propose an illogical proposition or fallacy. What is improper about the proposition that something cannot come from nothing?

Quote:
Secondly, that 'one event' is one event in a chain, and your assertion that it was the first event is not supported by anything other than your wish that it be so, constituting yet another fallacy of bare assertion.
No, it is not what I want to do. It is what is required by the problem. In natural chain of events that followed the big bang there have been countless opportunities for science to explain phenomena. For those explanations to be complete, they must, by necessity, explain, how those scientific principles, physical laws, value constants, etc. had an origin. After all, if science can explain transitions in phenomena, then he should be able, according to acceptable scientific standards and criteria, explain origins.

Quote:
Ah, here's the real problem. Who said anything about something coming from nothing? Certainly not science, for the very simple reason that 'nothing' is an invalid and impossible concept, as elucidated by quantum mechanics. There can't be any such thing as 'nothing', because it would constitute a zero field, which is prohibited by the Uncertainty Principle which, again, is at the root of the technology you are employing to post on this forum. Bear in mind that Quantum Field Theory is the most accurate theory in the history of human thought, being accurate to a resolution of 15 decimal places when its predictions are compared with observations. Indeed, it is quantum field theory that is invoked when people talk about the accuracy of Quantum Mechanics being comparable to estimating the distance from New York to Los Angeles to within the breadth of a human hair.
No, science would not contemplate the problem of something coming from nothing because science is inadequate to the task. Science deals with matter or measurable phenomena. Nothing has no measurable criteria, therefore it is beyond scientific observation. I believe that's what you said with you discussion of Quantum physics and measurable distances.


Quote:
Further, our current candidate models all provide a 'something' for the cosmos to have arisen from, whether by the input of e n e r g y from the collision of poly-dimensional 'branes', or by quantum fluctuations (something that are empirically well-founded). Not only that, and at the risk of committing the fallacy of composition, something from nothing would appear to be in direct violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which in our cosmos is inviolable. Of course, and with reference to my previous concern about committing a fallacy, it may be that cosmic instantiation is not subject to this law, but to suggest that it is not is at least as fallacious, if not more so, because that idea commits other, more formal fallacies.

In reality, the only model for cosmic instantiation that involves ex nihilo creation is yours, so this question needs to be levelled at your own model.
I think we need to apply principles of reverse engineering. Rather than going to the beginning. Start from the present and proceed backwards. Based on provable theories and equations, can we therefore explain the big bang?

A discussion of nothingness is more philosophical than scientific. However, assuming God is not a material being, he could easily create something from nothing.

The essential issue therefore is what is on the other side of the spark known as the big bang? Apparently, there is no material based explanation. By default, I am assuming a non material being did it.

Just because Science has no measure of nothing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may be just a metaphysical concept, but in the context of this discussion it is very real. Here we have a wall, it's called nothingness, we have to transcend that wall to explain how, from there, matter was created.

I gather that the reason why Hawking and other scientist have proposed the multiple universe theory is because that avoids the very problem I propose. If you concoct millions of universes in your calculation, you can explain according the laws of probability how our universe came about.


Last edited by Cnance : 12-19-2010 at 05:52 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #34  
Old 12-19-2010, 06:29 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,852
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
quote=hackenslash;1000098]I did. Your posts asserts that time doesn't apply to god, all the while using temporal references, contradicting that assertion.
What temporal references? We are all restricted by the meaning of words and language. How would you explain God's eternity with reference to time? For humans, time has material restrictions. For God, time is irrelevant, it had no relationship to his power, glory or Holiness. God created time when He created His creatures.

Let me repeat it in a different context. God is without time constraints because God is the author of time and therefore not subject to its restrictions. Do you have a problem with that? Explain why that may not work.

Quote:
What our best model of time is and what empirical evidence there is to support it.
What is this best model of time? All we know about the concept is what we have learned from our material world.

Quote:
I can't do it right now, because it's going to be a long post and time is short.

I'll come back and give you a proper introduction to relativity, using only mathematics that you should be reasonably familiar with, and demonstrate what time actually is, according to our best and most accurate scientific model.
I am familiar with the theory of relativity. Thanks, however, for the offer. The theory of relativity doesn't apply to God, just his creation. Einstein's theory is grounded on a our material world. God is not bounded by the same, therefore God has an entirely different conception of time.

If you have the time, ha. ha. ha. and I have the inclination I will explain in more detail God's concept of time. I am sure that will stir my adversary Lord jag. We can all discuss God, time, and the universe.


Last edited by Cnance : 12-19-2010 at 06:33 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #35  
Old 12-19-2010, 09:23 PM
Son of God Son of God is offline
I am new at Scam.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
What is this best model of time? All we know about the concept is what we have learned from our material world.

...........God's concept of time.
Your explanation would indeed be of interest as I have read your posts and find sound logic. Carry on.

Reply With Quote

  #36  
Old 12-19-2010, 09:54 PM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

So, contrary to what you said before, you're not actually interested in learning, you just want to preach? I withdraw my offer, and will just continue to kick your ass instead.

The fact that you are treating time as a separate entity tells me categorically that you don't understand relativity, so that wasn't honest, was it?
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State of Nature kazza Political Chat 45 08-09-2012 06:39 PM
Suppressing Nature Yeah Well Fine Then Political Chat 1 03-09-2010 04:09 PM
The Nature Of Cowardice pwrone Political Chat 22 05-26-2009 10:50 AM
Powers in Nature Solve et Coagula Political Chat 0 08-20-2007 05:28 PM
war against human nature Whispering wind Government Scams 9 09-15-2006 06:57 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.