Do You Know C.R.A.P. ? (page 5)

bohm

Bohn,

still Bohm.

So, are you saying that the universe had a natural cause? How could this first cause have appeared without a prior effect?

I didnt say the universe had a first cause. I didnt say it did not have a first cause: I dont know.

I am the guy who is constrained by the tedious burden science puts on your thinking, such as demanding the words you use a properly defined, that ones ideas are formulated in a precise mathematical way, that they build on evidence... so basically im fresh out of ideas for how everything got here. But i suspect the universe had a cause in the sence of quantum fluctuations

If you say it is part of the Material universe, then why does it function without any prior cause or effects?

dont put words in my mouth.

On the otherhand, If the first cause impacted our material universe from outside this dimensionality

obviously, if there was a cause (in what sence? cause is defined as laws of physics, what are the relevant laws of physics here?) and our universe did not exist at the time (which some versions of big bang theory suggest), it would have to come 'outside'. But do we know any of this at all?

You are the guy who claim to know how it all happened, not I. You cannot justify your own view by asking questions which are poorly defined.

, then why do you use derogatory words and condescending phrases like:

Because your ideas are silly, your arguments are bad and you have a shitty attitude.

Perry

You have not stated any FACTS relating to so called unreliability of good science.

Of course not. I never claimed to. Real science isn't good or bad, it is what it is. What I have claimed is that some of what is presented as science is not true, is biased, and susceptable to the influence of those doing the funding.

Surely you don't dispute that do you?

designs

This is what happens when you send kids to Vacation Bible School.

Perry

Bohn, you hold to a materialist worldview. You disparage references to a transcendant first cause. I merely pointed out the inherent illogic.

Like I said:

1. If you say that the universe had a natural cause, how could this first cause have appeared without a prior effect? Materialism stops dead in its tracks right there. If you say it is part of the Material universe, then why does it function without any prior cause or effects? This posit violates the very system you subscribe to and makes it Super-Natural.

2. On the otherhand, If the first cause impacted our material universe from outside this dimensionality then why is that offensive to you?

Because your ideas are silly, your arguments are bad and you have a shitty attitude.

We'll just agree to disagree if that is OK with you.

designs

O kids Genesis 2 takes up M-theory, S-duality, t-duality, u-duality, mirror symmetry and conifold transitions.

It doesn't, you mean I'm fired......

bohm

Bohn,

Did jesus tell you it was a clever thing to misspell peoples names in a dream or did you think that one up all by yourself?

you hold to a materialist worldview.

I am willing to accept any idea for which there is evidence. If you think that is wrong, so be it.

1. If you say that the universe had a natural cause, how could this first cause have appeared without a prior effect? Materialism stops dead in its tracks right there. If you say it is part of the Material universe, then why does it function without any prior cause or effects? This posit violates the very system you subscribe to and makes it Super-Natural.

so i might say: I think the universe had a 'uber-natural' cause. 'uber-natural' causes are such they can cause the universe and do not need a cause themselves, they are "outside our dimension" or whatever comforting phrase you like to say.

Ofcourse it is nothing but silly word-play. i have not demonstrated anything, i have not defined anything in a proper way and i have not given the slightest bit of evidence there is such a thing as 'uber-natural' causes or they are at all required. I just made a fancy word and pretend i am clever.

Even you must be able to see how silly that type of argument is, but that is exactly what you are engaging in with your nonsense about super-natural causes.

2. On the otherhand, If the first cause impacted our material universe from outside this dimensionality then why is that offensive to you?

didnt say it was. quit lying Perry.

tootired2care

What I have claimed is that some of what is presented as science is not true, is biased, and susceptable to the influence of those doing the funding.

Even science at it's worst is infinitely better than the arrogant assumptions based on zero evidence that religion offers. I think this is so important given the demnands of time and energy that religion demands, that could be better spent on something useful. Things of Science that are false are pretty quickly vetted and refined; a key difference. Religion is dogma and has little room for skepticism.

My thoughts on it is that if God sees all of the conflicting ideas about him and religions and chooses not to reveal himself than he doesn't deserve our time and energy in this scientific age.

Perry

so i might say: I think the universe had a 'uber-natural' cause. 'uber-natural' causes are such they can cause the universe and do not need a cause themselves

And so this violates a naturalistic / materialist worldview because you are forced envoke an unknown - something unlike anything in our observable universe. If that is not offensive to you , then great!

But expalin this for me; why would you assume that your supernatural cause wouldn't interact with humans?

you would be surpriced how far you would go if you put the least bit of effort into understanding the results science has produced over the last few hundred years. But i guess its to much work when you can just listen to the voices in your head who (strangely!) inform you that you have the right religion, that god think you are special, and preaching bullshit

Bohn,

All Christians have this knowing of God's esxstence. If they don't, they may very well not be Born Again. They not special people, most are quite ordinary; but they sought God through CHRIST ALONE. God inhabits a person's spirit, not his head. I know it is difficult to understand if you've never experienced God in your spirit. The first time I did, I didn't even know that I had a spirit..... coming form a JW bkg.

What Christians are saying on this board, is that God is knowable but not through the scientific method. It is through his son Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.

Surely if you can entertain the idea that the universe had a supernatural cause that doesn't adhere to the laws of this universe, then this cause could, if it wanted to transcend this universe and directly interact with humans.

Peace to you and yours.

tootired2care

All Christians have this knowing of God's esxstence. If they don't, they may very well not be Born Again.

Perry do you see any problem at all with that statement?

tootired2care

Perry, do you believe that the U.S. has divine providence over other countries?

Do You Know C.R.A.P. ?

Share this