FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > There are Multiple universes
There are Multiple universes
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, it’s a silly ‘sit on the toilet’ theory. Shame on you. "It really isn’t, there’s more to it than that and I will not rest till I’m proved right Steve, you here me, I will not rest ! But first I’ll shall have a brew and watch Homes Under the hammer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As in ‘uni’ meaning ‘one’. A multiverse, on the other hand....." So you think there are multiverses then ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, it’s a silly ‘sit on the toilet’ theory. Shame on you.
It really isn’t, there’s more to it than that and I will not rest till I’m proved right Steve, you here me, I will not rest !
But first I’ll shall have a brew and watch Homes Under the hammer."It ought to be “ridiculous beyond comprehension threads under the hammer” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As in ‘uni’ meaning ‘one’. A multiverse, on the other hand..... So you think there are multiverses then ?" multiversa No, that’s an even more stupider idea than the last one! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think he’s referring to the multiverse theory. However OP I don’t think gravity or the fact we are here points to it as being anything more than theory. It’s been around a while, every decision made can either be made or not made and in one multiverse theory those unmade and made decisions are both made and they essentially create a new branch of time which then carries on, creating an unlimited number of multiverses where every decision ever made is both made and unmade. Personally I think it’s nonsense. But then again, people thought the earth was flat at one time " So, the fact we are here at all with one universe is more unbelievable to me, it’s to convenient, there must have been something guiding it, cause it could easierly just have been chaos. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Tsk, tsk, tsk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do all these universes contain a flat Earth though? " Flat earthers are total fuckwits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x " Thanks for your invaluable input. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do all these universes contain a flat Earth though? Flat earthers are total fuckwits " Except, of course, living by the sea, I have with mine own fair eyes seen ships go “over the horizon” and out of sight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chaos is Greek and they thought the universe started from chaos and I think they were right. " So you go from chaos to having Argos, Spandeu Ballet, mobile phones and pickled onion Monster Munch, nah to convenient ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chaos is Greek and they thought the universe started from chaos and I think they were right. So you go from chaos to having Argos, Spandeu Ballet, mobile phones and pickled onion Monster Munch, nah to convenient ! " Argos is Greek too!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tame Impala? SHAME Impala
Tsk, tsk, tsk. "They mocked Einstein for his genius Steve, now I know how he felt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chaos is Greek and they thought the universe started from chaos and I think they were right. So you go from chaos to having Argos, Spandeu Ballet, mobile phones and pickled onion Monster Munch, nah to convenient ! Argos is Greek too! "That’s so weird, I’m on another level. Is he the Greek god of little pens ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tame Impala? SHAME Impala
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
They mocked Einstein for his genius Steve, now I know how he felt. "Nah, it was his stupid hair style. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think he’s referring to the multiverse theory. However OP I don’t think gravity or the fact we are here points to it as being anything more than theory. It’s been around a while, every decision made can either be made or not made and in one multiverse theory those unmade and made decisions are both made and they essentially create a new branch of time which then carries on, creating an unlimited number of multiverses where every decision ever made is both made and unmade. Personally I think it’s nonsense. But then again, people thought the earth was flat at one time " You may think it's nonsense. However there is another universe in which you read Michael Moorcock in your teenage years and realised that as a tool for understanding moral complexity and the responsibility that comes with agency the multiverse theory, along with the idea that multiverses share space and have leakages between them is an essential philosophical guide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chaos is Greek and they thought the universe started from chaos and I think they were right. So you go from chaos to having Argos, Spandeu Ballet, mobile phones and pickled onion Monster Munch, nah to convenient ! Argos is Greek too!
That’s so weird, I’m on another level. Is he the Greek god of little pens ?"No, that was biro - but he was from Hungary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do all these universes contain a flat Earth though? Flat earthers are total fuckwits Except, of course, living by the sea, I have with mine own fair eyes seen ships go “over the horizon” and out of sight. " You should go to Specsavers  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tame Impala? SHAME Impala
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
They mocked Einstein for his genius Steve, now I know how he felt.
Nah, it was his stupid hair style. "I have a ginger Afro ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chaos is Greek and they thought the universe started from chaos and I think they were right. So you go from chaos to having Argos, Spandeu Ballet, mobile phones and pickled onion Monster Munch, nah to convenient ! Argos is Greek too!
That’s so weird, I’m on another level. Is he the Greek god of little pens ?"If Argos is a greek god, how come all his temple servants are the bored ones with vacant expressions who weren't snooty enough to get a job on the perfume counter in Boots? (Asking for a friend, obviously). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chaos is Greek and they thought the universe started from chaos and I think they were right. So you go from chaos to having Argos, Spandeu Ballet, mobile phones and pickled onion Monster Munch, nah to convenient ! Argos is Greek too!
That’s so weird, I’m on another level. Is he the Greek god of little pens ?
No, that was biro - but he was from Hungary. "Fuck me you’re on fire this morning and There’s no cunt about to witness this comedy gold, save it Steve, save it till the ladies get here. (The ladies aren’t getting here) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tame Impala? SHAME Impala
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
They mocked Einstein for his genius Steve, now I know how he felt.
Nah, it was his stupid hair style.
I have a ginger Afro !"Oh. What you gonna do then, dude? it’s not enough for the disability thread and I’m stuck with any profile/meet/sex tips (except “when it’s wet, you’re on a good bet”) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tame Impala? SHAME Impala
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
They mocked Einstein for his genius Steve, now I know how he felt.
Nah, it was his stupid hair style.
I have a ginger Afro !
Oh. What you gonna do then, dude? it’s not enough for the disability thread and I’m stuck with any profile/meet/sex tips (except “when it’s wet, you’re on a good bet”) "You think my ginger Afro is a hinderence on the contrary it’s the opposite, I’ve cornered a very niche market and I’m cleaning up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One universe, no others exist. The reason they don't exist is the fact that if it happened this universe would not exist. It does, therefore no others exist. Have a good universe. "Oh well, case closed your honour. We’re wasting are time here lads, this has been wrapped up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tame Impala? SHAME Impala
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
They mocked Einstein for his genius Steve, now I know how he felt.
Nah, it was his stupid hair style.
I have a ginger Afro !
Oh. What you gonna do then, dude? it’s not enough for the disability thread and I’m stuck with any profile/meet/sex tips (except “when it’s wet, you’re on a good bet”)
You think my ginger Afro is a hinderence on the contrary it’s the opposite, I’ve cornered a very niche market and I’m cleaning up. "Clean up duties  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shall be in Exeter this Saturday, actually. "bump | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shall be in Exeter this Saturday, actually. "Thanks for letting me know, I will be out of town. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shall be in Exeter this Saturday, actually. bump "I’m not having the sex with you Steve, that will be happening in another universe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shall be in Exeter this Saturday, actually. bump
I’m not having the sex with you Steve, that will be happening in another universe."But...but....you said in a multistory universe, anything could happen! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shall be in Exeter this Saturday, actually. bump
I’m not having the sex with you Steve, that will be happening in another universe.
But...but....you said in a multistory universe, anything could happen! "Another Steve in another universe will be getting to see my cock, but not you in this one good buddy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. " Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely "I think from the tone of the OP it was just a joke. Think a bit of sarcasm really, i don't think he meant to offend you x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shall be in Exeter this Saturday, actually. bump
I’m not having the sex with you Steve, that will be happening in another universe.
But...but....you said in a multistory universe, anything could happen!
Another Steve in another universe will be getting to see my cock, but not you in this one good buddy. "I’ve just re-read the message - multi-storey car park. My bad.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely "Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment."That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely "It’s easy to misunderstand sometimes when people write things. I was offered a duck from a lady once and I sharply reminded her that I was not a farmer. She got very crossly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I was going to announce but now shan’t was that we can meet in Exeter if you’re on the A30/M5 bridge at about 8.30am on Saturday. Wave crazily so I can point you out to the wife. Off to Cornwall! Surfer dude beach "Well I am incredibly lonely Steve and I’m also not a very nice person, so I will see you there. I’m just going off to cry and chat to random strangers in the street. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I was going to announce but now shan’t was that we can meet in Exeter if you’re on the A30/M5 bridge at about 8.30am on Saturday. Wave crazily so I can point you out to the wife. Off to Cornwall! Surfer dude beach
Well I am incredibly lonely Steve and I’m also not a very nice person, so I will see you there. I’m just going off to cry and chat to random strangers in the street."is that a ‘maybe’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in. "Ok, well maybe you don’t participate in this one and kindly leave the thread and find one on who’s hot or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve decided from now on and with immediate effect to concentrate all my efforts on turning straight men bi cos I know they all are anyway and are gagging for it. " As I’m having luncheon in Hove today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in.
Ok, well maybe you don’t participate in this one and kindly leave the thread and find one on who’s hot or not. "Leave it out. There’s no need for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in.
Ok, well maybe you don’t participate in this one and kindly leave the thread and find one on who’s hot or not. "As your such a nice man, we shall do as you ask. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in.
Ok, well maybe you don’t participate in this one and kindly leave the thread and find one on who’s hot or not.
As your such a nice man, we shall do as you ask."Toddle pip ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in.
Ok, well maybe you don’t participate in this one and kindly leave the thread and find one on who’s hot or not.
Leave it out. There’s no need for that."This guy hasn’t read all the thread. Clearly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in.
Ok, well maybe you don’t participate in this one and kindly leave the thread and find one on who’s hot or not.
Leave it out. There’s no need for that.
This guy hasn’t read all the thread. Clearly. "And? You acted like an arse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in.
Ok, well maybe you don’t participate in this one and kindly leave the thread and find one on who’s hot or not.
Leave it out. There’s no need for that.
This guy hasn’t read all the thread. Clearly.
And? You acted like an arse."So I presume in the interest of balance you’ll will tell the couple that they also acted like an arse, nah didn’t think so. Have a read through and come back to me, there’s a good chap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chill....it’s a lovely summer day and it’s a fun thread. No need for negativity. Let’s not react to things we don’t like. " Ok, where were we ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to comment on this fascinating subject but it’s far too early and I’ve not had my full quota of caffeine yet... Mrs B x Thanks for your invaluable input. Your not a nice guy and incredibly brave behind a keyboard with your smart comments. I very much doubt you would be so brave face to face. But I’m genuinely pleased that it makes you feel like a funny, witty and intelligent guy. Forums can be a great help for the lonely
Well done on ruining a light hearted thread and jumping to a conclusion about me about me based on a throw away comment.
That is an art you have mastered and one we don’t normally participate in. "Well dont participate then . Its only for people with a sence of humour .... you probably need the room down the corridor .... that has the arguments . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I strongly believe there are multiple universes, there’s a lot of factors that points to this, the fact that gravity is weaker than other forces, because other parts of gravity spreads to other dimensions. Also the fact that so many things had to align just for us to be here and if one of things things was out by 0.00000002 amount we wouldn’t be here at all, which I find very convient. Anyone else believe in this theory too ?" Yes and no . Simple fact is ... Nobody knows and I doubt we ever will . I'd love to know but it ain't gonna happen  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i don't have anywhere near the requistite knowledge of physics to make a personal judgement. That probably makes me similar to ~99% of the population. I can only listen to people that discuss it and assess their logic. On that basis I don't find it a convincing theory and there doesn't appear to be any evidence for it and perhaps it isn't even testable. But that doesn't mean it's wrong " For me it’s just a question of probability, if there is just one universe, how did everything align so that we’re here at all and also they can’t explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do all these universes contain a flat Earth though? Flat earthers are total fuckwits " 100% proof that the earth is flat...maps, it’s the earth on a bit paper...it’s flat Boom, mind blowing huh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read this twice as comprehension before coffee needs encouragement, can I ask please what is it your all on and where can I get some " It’s no more far fetched than a single universe being created out of total chaos, when the chances of order are highly improbable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i don't have anywhere near the requistite knowledge of physics to make a personal judgement. That probably makes me similar to ~99% of the population. I can only listen to people that discuss it and assess their logic. On that basis I don't find it a convincing theory and there doesn't appear to be any evidence for it and perhaps it isn't even testable. But that doesn't mean it's wrong For me it’s just a question of probability, if there is just one universe, how did everything align so that we’re here at all " If it didn't then you wouldn't be asking the question " and also they can’t explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces." I don't have enough knowledge of physics to answer. Flat earthers have 20 similar questions that most people can't answer either. I'm not dismissing the theory, but it seems a pure theory with no actual evidence. Not an inherent problem by the way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read this twice as comprehension before coffee needs encouragement, can I ask please what is it your all on and where can I get some It’s no more far fetched than a single universe being created out of total chaos, when the chances of order are highly improbable. " I haven’t commented in the conversation as I would not know where to start just it’s such a in-depth discussion for early hours wondered how it was manageable it’s as much as I can do to remember what side of the bed is against the wall never mind have theories at that time ( I know it is no longer early hours now) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read this twice as comprehension before coffee needs encouragement, can I ask please what is it your all on and where can I get some It’s no more far fetched than a single universe being created out of total chaos, when the chances of order are highly improbable. " Slightly off topic (although mentioned earlier), i spoke to a flat earther who is a fully qualified heart surgeon. How can you be so intelligent yet so naive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i don't have anywhere near the requistite knowledge of physics to make a personal judgement. That probably makes me similar to ~99% of the population. I can only listen to people that discuss it and assess their logic. On that basis I don't find it a convincing theory and there doesn't appear to be any evidence for it and perhaps it isn't even testable. But that doesn't mean it's wrong For me it’s just a question of probability, if there is just one universe, how did everything align so that we’re here at all If it didn't then you wouldn't be asking the question and also they can’t explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces. I don't have enough knowledge of physics to answer. Flat earthers have 20 similar questions that most people can't answer either. I'm not dismissing the theory, but it seems a pure theory with no actual evidence. Not an inherent problem by the way. " Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read this twice as comprehension before coffee needs encouragement, can I ask please what is it your all on and where can I get some It’s no more far fetched than a single universe being created out of total chaos, when the chances of order are highly improbable. Slightly off topic (although mentioned earlier), i spoke to a flat earther who is a fully qualified heart surgeon. How can you be so intelligent yet so naive? " Intelligence is measure on many levels, I’ve had people with degrees labour for me and they have zero common sense, you watch them and think what the fuck are you doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a lot of cock " Thanks for your invaluable input. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read this twice as comprehension before coffee needs encouragement, can I ask please what is it your all on and where can I get some It’s no more far fetched than a single universe being created out of total chaos, when the chances of order are highly improbable. Slightly off topic (although mentioned earlier), i spoke to a flat earther who is a fully qualified heart surgeon. How can you be so intelligent yet so naive? Intelligence is measure on many levels, I’ve had people with degrees labour for me and they have zero common sense, you watch them and think what the fuck are you doing. " Daft cunt wouldn't be operating on my heart, id pop a rennie and take my chances | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No idea. Next." Thank you for your invaluable input. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting theory, but it's just that, so can you believe it's a fact? " No, it’s just a theory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting theory, but it's just that, so can you believe it's a fact? No, it’s just a theory." I know as a fact that I fabbed a cock pic on your profile. My theory is that you’ll think ‘my! my! BS is a fine fellow, I want to suck his cock’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it didn't then you wouldn't be asking the question " Wow, I thought you were more intelligent than that. That’s irreverent to the question, I think we’ve gathered we have a universe created out of chaos cause we’re here, but it doesn’t answer the question under what circumstances we are here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting theory, but it's just that, so can you believe it's a fact? No, it’s just a theory. I know as a fact that I fabbed a cock pic on your profile. My theory is that you’ll think ‘my! my! BS is a fine fellow, I want to suck his cock’" So you have, I’m still not going to meet you in Exeter though Steve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting theory, but it's just that, so can you believe it's a fact? No, it’s just a theory. I know as a fact that I fabbed a cock pic on your profile. My theory is that you’ll think ‘my! my! BS is a fine fellow, I want to suck his cock’ So you have, I’m still not going to meet you in Exeter though Steve. " I know. I’ve cancelled the family holiday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok, I have a super-weird theory. I’m not going to say it’s unique as I’m not narcissistic enough to think that I’m the only one who is bonkers enough on this planet to have come up wth this. Sooooo...I think that what we call our universe is actually a giant being of some sort. A bit like how our gut is filled with a vast number of different bacteria, we, and the other species we inhabit on this planet, are merely far more primitive organisms that the one we happen to be in. We’re a microcosm for the macrocosm. Just like the bacteria in our gut are only aware of the environs of our large intestine and would have no frame of reference to comprehend a human being in its entirety...or hot dogs, council tax or hamster wheels for that matter...we are unable to comprehend what manner of being we live in. Multi-dimensional, string and quantum theory could technically be explained this way. As could Big Bang/Big Bust cycles (birth and death, anyone?) Or maybe we’re flying through space on a flat earth, on the back of four elephants standing atop a giant turtle. Yes, I know. I’m completely mad. " I agree Elcee I think we exist within a vast intelligent being and that we are each unique jewels glistening in the depths of its unfathomable beauty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No idea. Next. Thank you for your invaluable input." Not a problem. Anything else I can help you with? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sold the house. "Steve. He's only one man, in a sea of dicks. Cheer up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sold the house.
Steve. He's only one man, in a sea of dicks. Cheer up "He’s obsessed, let it go Steve, let it go ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok, I have a super-weird theory. I’m not going to say it’s unique as I’m not narcissistic enough to think that I’m the only one who is bonkers enough on this planet to have come up wth this. Sooooo...I think that what we call our universe is actually a giant being of some sort. A bit like how our gut is filled with a vast number of different bacteria, we, and the other species we inhabit on this planet, are merely far more primitive organisms that the one we happen to be in. We’re a microcosm for the macrocosm. Just like the bacteria in our gut are only aware of the environs of our large intestine and would have no frame of reference to comprehend a human being in its entirety...or hot dogs, council tax or hamster wheels for that matter...we are unable to comprehend what manner of being we live in. Multi-dimensional, string and quantum theory could technically be explained this way. As could Big Bang/Big Bust cycles (birth and death, anyone?) Or maybe we’re flying through space on a flat earth, on the back of four elephants standing atop a giant turtle. Yes, I know. I’m completely mad. " I like mad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No idea. Next. Thank you for your invaluable input. Not a problem. Anything else I can help you with? "No thank you, you’ve shown me that some people still have a sense of humour and take that comment in the lighthearted way it was intended by not getting the hump ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sold the house.
Steve. He's only one man, in a sea of dicks. Cheer up "Speaking of which, yet another straight man found via a veri from a cock sucking bi and his ‘discrete’ glory hole. Talk about a mad universe. Tame? You’re out. I’ve gone off men. You can sleep soundly this evening knowing I’m not....using...your photos  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sold the house.
Steve. He's only one man, in a sea of dicks. Cheer up
He’s obsessed, let it go Steve, let it go !"I’m not gripping too hard! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sold the house.
Steve. He's only one man, in a sea of dicks. Cheer up
Speaking of which, yet another straight man found via a veri from a cock sucking bi and his ‘discrete’ glory hole.
Talk about a mad universe.
Tame? You’re out. I’ve gone off men. You can sleep soundly this evening knowing I’m not....using...your photos "I forbid you to crack one out to my photos Steve ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No idea. Next. Thank you for your invaluable input. Not a problem. Anything else I can help you with?
No thank you, you’ve shown me that some people still have a sense of humour and take that comment in the lighthearted way it was intended by not getting the hump ! "Well if there aren’t some sand filled vaginas on this thread today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sold the house.
Steve. He's only one man, in a sea of dicks. Cheer up
Speaking of which, yet another straight man found via a veri from a cock sucking bi and his ‘discrete’ glory hole.
Talk about a mad universe.
Tame? You’re out. I’ve gone off men. You can sleep soundly this evening knowing I’m not....using...your photos
I forbid you to crack one out to my photos Steve !"The caption for my new photo will be ‘The Splurge’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No idea. Next. Thank you for your invaluable input. Not a problem. Anything else I can help you with?
No thank you, you’ve shown me that some people still have a sense of humour and take that comment in the lighthearted way it was intended by not getting the hump ! "Somebody needs a snickers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a Level 2 parallel universe, regions of space are continuing to undergo an inflation phase. Because of the continuing inflationary phase in these universes, space between us and the other universes is literally expanding faster than the speed of light — and they are, therefore, completely unreachable. That’s why we can’t find them hope it helps "At last! Someone who's actually been there and returned to tell the tale. Can you tell us what life is like in these other universes. Do guys get laid more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply "Why can't there be one universe without a god? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sold the house.
Steve. He's only one man, in a sea of dicks. Cheer up
Speaking of which, yet another straight man found via a veri from a cock sucking bi and his ‘discrete’ glory hole.
Talk about a mad universe.
Tame? You’re out. I’ve gone off men. You can sleep soundly this evening knowing I’m not....using...your photos "What would all the bi men do without straight men's cocks on offer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?"As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think anything is possible. " Is an all-forgiving all-loving God who so can't forgive us for our ancestors having eaten from the wrong tree that it would quite happily damn us each to eternal torture simply for not believing in it possible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not "But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression. "Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression.
Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee? "Please explain why it's bizarre. If the premise of your argument is that something complex has to have created by something more complex, why does that premise not apply to the more complex creator? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression.
Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee?
Please explain why it's bizarre. If the premise of your argument is that something complex has to have created by something more complex, why does that premise not apply to the more complex creator?
"That's not the premise of my thinking personally, although I'll give you that it is for some. I agree. All authors are more complex than their works. But that isn't an argument against the existence of all authors. Therein is Dawkins fallacy. As for the infinite regression thing... you do understand that god is supposedly infinite and eternal right? Sorry if that comes off as pissy. I mean it in the spirit of lighthearted logical jousting. Just being frank and short because it's too fucking hot to write long polite replies haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I strongly believe there are multiple universes, there’s a lot of factors that points to this, the fact that gravity is weaker than other forces, because other parts of gravity spreads to other dimensions. Also the fact that so many things had to align just for us to be here and if one of things things was out by 0.00000002 amount we wouldn’t be here at all, which I find very convient. Anyone else believe in this theory too ?" I believe there is a very strong possibility of multiverses but only because of how the theory fits in with physical laws. The idea that us being here " is all a bit too convenient " is the same faulty logic that leads to theism. Why do so many people have a problem with the idea that we are only here by accident? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I strongly believe there are multiple universes, there’s a lot of factors that points to this, the fact that gravity is weaker than other forces, because other parts of gravity spreads to other dimensions. Also the fact that so many things had to align just for us to be here and if one of things things was out by 0.00000002 amount we wouldn’t be here at all, which I find very convient. Anyone else believe in this theory too ? I believe there is a very strong possibility of multiverses but only because of how the theory fits in with physical laws. The idea that us being here " is all a bit too convenient " is the same faulty logic that leads to theism. Why do so many people have a problem with the idea that we are only here by accident?" So are you saying there’s a creator ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression.
Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee?
Please explain why it's bizarre. If the premise of your argument is that something complex has to have created by something more complex, why does that premise not apply to the more complex creator?
That's not the premise of my thinking personally, although I'll give you that it is for some. I agree. All authors are more complex than their works. But that isn't an argument against the existence of all authors. Therein is Dawkins fallacy.
As for the infinite regression thing... you do understand that god is supposedly infinite and eternal right?
Sorry if that comes off as pissy. I mean it in the spirit of lighthearted logical jousting. Just being frank and short because it's too fucking hot to write long polite replies haha "The existence of authors per se does not mean one particular author exists. If you posit something as being infinite and eternal you might just as well say it's the universe, saying it's God is just arbitrary. The problem with the argument from design is that it is inherently contradictory in that it's basic premise is that something complex must have a more complex cause. You can't then say "except for that complex thing I call God". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, it’s a silly ‘sit on the toilet’ theory. Shame on you.
It really isn’t, there’s more to it than that and I will not rest till I’m proved right Steve, you here me, I will not rest !
But first I’ll shall have a brew and watch Homes Under the hammer."It's good to theorise. However, it's good to work... Errm do you do the latter? Of course you might be here all the time cos you're on annual leave, or be self-employed or.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression.
Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee?
Please explain why it's bizarre. If the premise of your argument is that something complex has to have created by something more complex, why does that premise not apply to the more complex creator?
That's not the premise of my thinking personally, although I'll give you that it is for some. I agree. All authors are more complex than their works. But that isn't an argument against the existence of all authors. Therein is Dawkins fallacy.
As for the infinite regression thing... you do understand that god is supposedly infinite and eternal right?
Sorry if that comes off as pissy. I mean it in the spirit of lighthearted logical jousting. Just being frank and short because it's too fucking hot to write long polite replies haha
The existence of authors per se does not mean one particular author exists.
If you posit something as being infinite and eternal you might just as well say it's the universe, saying it's God is just arbitrary.
The problem with the argument from design is that it is inherently contradictory in that it's basic premise is that something complex must have a more complex cause. You can't then say "except for that complex thing I call God". "Agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do so many people have a problem with the idea that we are only here by accident?" I think people in general have problems with anything that's outlandishly unbelievable. If you want to argue that it was just a coincidence it's up to you whether you're happy to just blurt out something that sounds unbelievable or if you actually want to make a case for it and try and convince us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression.
Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee?
Please explain why it's bizarre. If the premise of your argument is that something complex has to have created by something more complex, why does that premise not apply to the more complex creator?
That's not the premise of my thinking personally, although I'll give you that it is for some. I agree. All authors are more complex than their works. But that isn't an argument against the existence of all authors. Therein is Dawkins fallacy.
As for the infinite regression thing... you do understand that god is supposedly infinite and eternal right?
Sorry if that comes off as pissy. I mean it in the spirit of lighthearted logical jousting. Just being frank and short because it's too fucking hot to write long polite replies haha
The existence of authors per se does not mean one particular author exists.
If you posit something as being infinite and eternal you might just as well say it's the universe, saying it's God is just arbitrary.
The problem with the argument from design is that it is inherently contradictory in that it's basic premise is that something complex must have a more complex cause. You can't then say "except for that complex thing I call God".
Agreed "Who the fuck is Dawkins? The offspring of Darwin and Hawkins?
Anyway... The Big Bang could be the previous universe imploding and starting again? Who are we to know how many Big Bangs there have been and how many to come? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ?" In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ? In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained." I'm going with space and time being infinite. There was always something here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ? In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained." Science has taught us nothing is something whereas time is a concept marked by cyclic renewal and decay (think seasons, think body cells). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the fact that gravity is weaker than other forces, because other parts of gravity spreads to other dimensions " The science is settled, and it's beautiful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ? In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained. I'm going with space and time being infinite. There was always something here "Similarly, how big do you think our universe/the other universes are OP? Do they have an edge? We know the universe is expanding, but into what? If our universe is infinite, then any possible thing that could happen, will happen - which makes human life not so unlikely after all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a Level 2 parallel universe, regions of space are continuing to undergo an inflation phase. Because of the continuing inflationary phase in these universes, space between us and the other universes is literally expanding faster than the speed of light — and they are, therefore, completely unreachable. That’s why we can’t find them hope it helps At last! Someone who's actually been there and returned to tell the tale. Can you tell us what life is like in these other universes. Do guys get laid more? "Yes yes they do a lot more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ? In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained. I'm going with space and time being infinite. There was always something here
Similarly, how big do you think our universe/the other universes are OP? Do they have an edge? We know the universe is expanding, but into what? If our universe is infinite, then any possible thing that could happen, will happen - which makes human life not so unlikely after all. "So are you comfortable with the idea that absolutely everything has 100% probability of existing somewhere out there? Two avocados called Greg who created everything we see and hear. Yep! They're out there too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression.
Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee?
Please explain why it's bizarre. If the premise of your argument is that something complex has to have created by something more complex, why does that premise not apply to the more complex creator?
That's not the premise of my thinking personally, although I'll give you that it is for some. I agree. All authors are more complex than their works. But that isn't an argument against the existence of all authors. Therein is Dawkins fallacy.
As for the infinite regression thing... you do understand that god is supposedly infinite and eternal right?
Sorry if that comes off as pissy. I mean it in the spirit of lighthearted logical jousting. Just being frank and short because it's too fucking hot to write long polite replies haha
The existence of authors per se does not mean one particular author exists.
If you posit something as being infinite and eternal you might just as well say it's the universe, saying it's God is just arbitrary.
The problem with the argument from design is that it is inherently contradictory in that it's basic premise is that something complex must have a more complex cause. You can't then say "except for that complex thing I call God".
Agreed
Who the fuck is Dawkins? The offspring of Darwin and Hawkins?
Anyway... The Big Bang could be the previous universe imploding and starting again? Who are we to know how many Big Bangs there have been and how many to come?"Do you really not know, or were you being funny? Richard Dawkins is probably one of the best known atheists in the world. Besides, it’s Hawking, not Hawkins. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ? In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained. I'm going with space and time being infinite. There was always something here
Similarly, how big do you think our universe/the other universes are OP? Do they have an edge? We know the universe is expanding, but into what? If our universe is infinite, then any possible thing that could happen, will happen - which makes human life not so unlikely after all.
So are you comfortable with the idea that absolutely everything has 100% probability of existing somewhere out there? Two avocados called Greg who created everything we see and hear. Yep! They're out there too "Bet both of them having the same name gets confusing . That one kind of doesn't make sense as you're not back to the creationist arguement but I suppose under that theory if it's possible for avocados to develop the bodily systems and consciousness required there is an avocado called Greg somewhere . I have no idea if I believe that theory or not really, I was just throwing it into the discussion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ? In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained. I'm going with space and time being infinite. There was always something here
Similarly, how big do you think our universe/the other universes are OP? Do they have an edge? We know the universe is expanding, but into what? If our universe is infinite, then any possible thing that could happen, will happen - which makes human life not so unlikely after all.
So are you comfortable with the idea that absolutely everything has 100% probability of existing somewhere out there? Two avocados called Greg who created everything we see and hear. Yep! They're out there too
Bet both of them having the same name gets confusing . That one kind of doesn't make sense as you're not back to the creationist arguement but I suppose under that theory if it's possible for avocados to develop the bodily systems and consciousness required there is an avocado called Greg somewhere . I have no idea if I believe that theory or not really, I was just throwing it into the discussion "Haha It's just that infinity appears to make everything 100% possible. A talking jellyfish? Somewhere out there in the infinite depths of space and time it exists. You see what I'm saying? The trouble is when you start proposing things that are logically impossible, as in 2 avocados who created everything we see and hear all by themselves being out there as well as 15 mancurian omelettes who also created everything we see and hear all by themselves too. Infinity deems both of them must also be out there... as is an infinite godless universe
At some point the logic gets too weird and you're back to thinking that can't really be how this whole shebang works | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Soooo did schroedinger ever find the cat after?" No. Fucking bugger scarpered | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
But if you posit a god that created it all, that God must be infinitely more complex than the universe. How did that infinitely complex being come into existence. Wouldn't that need a more intelligent creator and so on in an infinite regression.
Sorry dude but that's a bit of a weird botch of a fallacious Dawkins argument and a bizarre infinite regression argument that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's time for another coffee?
Please explain why it's bizarre. If the premise of your argument is that something complex has to have created by something more complex, why does that premise not apply to the more complex creator?
That's not the premise of my thinking personally, although I'll give you that it is for some. I agree. All authors are more complex than their works. But that isn't an argument against the existence of all authors. Therein is Dawkins fallacy.
As for the infinite regression thing... you do understand that god is supposedly infinite and eternal right?
Sorry if that comes off as pissy. I mean it in the spirit of lighthearted logical jousting. Just being frank and short because it's too fucking hot to write long polite replies haha
The existence of authors per se does not mean one particular author exists.
If you posit something as being infinite and eternal you might just as well say it's the universe, saying it's God is just arbitrary.
The problem with the argument from design is that it is inherently contradictory in that it's basic premise is that something complex must have a more complex cause. You can't then say "except for that complex thing I call God".
Agreed
Who the fuck is Dawkins? The offspring of Darwin and Hawkins?
Anyway... The Big Bang could be the previous universe imploding and starting again? Who are we to know how many Big Bangs there have been and how many to come?
Do you really not know, or were you being funny? Richard Dawkins is probably one of the best known atheists in the world. Besides, it’s Hawking, not Hawkins."Nope haven't heard of him, my current studies do not involve theology or classical sciences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope haven't heard of him, my current studies do not involve theology or classical sciences." You're not missing out on much. Now Sally Hawkins, to whom you were clearly referring rather than Steven Hawking ... she's a different matter altogether. She's been in some great films | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope haven't heard of him, my current studies do not involve theology or classical sciences. You're not missing out on much. Now Sally Hawkins, to whom you were clearly referring rather than Steven Hawking ... she's a different matter altogether. She's been in some great films "Isn't it Stephen? I do actually have a little book about him somewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I strongly believe there are multiple universes, there’s a lot of factors that points to this, the fact that gravity is weaker than other forces, because other parts of gravity spreads to other dimensions. Also the fact that so many things had to align just for us to be here and if one of things things was out by 0.00000002 amount we wouldn’t be here at all, which I find very convient. Anyone else believe in this theory too ? I believe there is a very strong possibility of multiverses but only because of how the theory fits in with physical laws. The idea that us being here " is all a bit too convenient " is the same faulty logic that leads to theism. Why do so many people have a problem with the idea that we are only here by accident? So are you saying there’s a creator ?" No. Quite the opposite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do so many people have a problem with the idea that we are only here by accident? I think people in general have problems with anything that's outlandishly unbelievable. If you want to argue that it was just a coincidence it's up to you whether you're happy to just blurt out something that sounds unbelievable or if you actually want to make a case for it and try and convince us " You say "outlandishly unbelievable". Why is it? Is it merely because people cannot or will not except that they are here and only for a short time then they are winked out of existance again? There isnt a case for a creator. If anyone can put forward evidence for one, i will look at it. The inly argument I have ever heard for it boils down to " we dont know, but this makes us feel better". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are we agreed at some point something was formed out of nothing, or was there always something there ? In the great scheme of astrophysics, "nothing" is an extremely difficult concept to define. Our understanding of space, the universe and everything is still very much in its's infancy. Even our understanding of the "laws" of physics are questionable until total knowledge is gained. I'm going with space and time being infinite. There was always something here
Similarly, how big do you think our universe/the other universes are OP? Do they have an edge? We know the universe is expanding, but into what? If our universe is infinite, then any possible thing that could happen, will happen - which makes human life not so unlikely after all.
So are you comfortable with the idea that absolutely everything has 100% probability of existing somewhere out there? Two avocados called Greg who created everything we see and hear. Yep! They're out there too "If you understand infinity, then yes. Improbability is not impossibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Soooo did schroedinger ever find the cat after?" Yeah...it was dead. Some bastard poisoned it. But nobody saw who did it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. " Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do so many people have a problem with the idea that we are only here by accident? I think people in general have problems with anything that's outlandishly unbelievable. If you want to argue that it was just a coincidence it's up to you whether you're happy to just blurt out something that sounds unbelievable or if you actually want to make a case for it and try and convince us You say "outlandishly unbelievable". Why is it? Is it merely because people cannot or will not except that they are here and only for a short time then they are winked out of existance again? There isnt a case for a creator. If anyone can put forward evidence for one, i will look at it. The inly argument I have ever heard for it boils down to " we dont know, but this makes us feel better". " The claim that a bunch of ping pong balls bouncing off each other eventually led to Mozarts Requiem is clearly outlandishly unbelievable. I'm not saying it's any more outlandishly unbelievable than theism. But at least you can make a convincing logical case for theism whereas you can't yet for the ping pong balls. But I'm open ears and open minded so fire away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not "So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?"Hell yeah, indoctrination at its finest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?"Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable. Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Multiple Universes? Oh God, does that mean I have to answer multiple (possibly infinite) times? Maybe with an infinite number of different answers? I think I need a black hole to hide in." You and your obsession with anal sex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?
Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable.
Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest "Only if you define God in a way that 99% of people who believe in him don't accept | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind." Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?
Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable.
Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest
Only if you define God in a way that 99% of people who believe in him don't accept "I don't see anyone who believes in god saying that it isn't infinite and eternal and some kind of invisible spirit or mind. Agreeably some theists don't get the logical ramifications of such a thing. Most atheists don't either. But that's their problem. Even Dawkins admitted that no one really believes god is an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud. Yet it's this straw man that most atheists set themselves against. Now that really is something 99% of people who believe in god don't accept | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude ! "Cool! got any evidence of that or is it just what you've been told | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?
Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable.
Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest
Only if you define God in a way that 99% of people who believe in him don't accept
I don't see anyone who believes in god saying that it isn't infinite and eternal and some kind of invisible spirit or mind. Agreeably some theists don't get the logical ramifications of such a thing. Most atheists don't either. But that's their problem.
Even Dawkins admitted that no one really believes god is an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud. Yet it's this straw man that most atheists set themselves against. Now that really is something 99% of people who believe in god don't accept "99% of people who believe in God believe in an interventionist God who can and does interfere in the lives of human beings. As I understand it, you don't believe in God in that sense.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude !
Cool! got any evidence of that or is it just what you've been told "Yes, get yourself a boat and a powerful laser level and a plank and a marker pen, take the boat out and mark where the laser level is on the boat with a marker pen, then go out a few km, then take another mark, you will need a long board, over about 3km the difference will be as much as 20 feet. That’s one method, there’s plenty more. With the correct calculations you can work out the shape, by knowing the earth distance etc. Hope this helps X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?
Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable.
Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest
Only if you define God in a way that 99% of people who believe in him don't accept
I don't see anyone who believes in god saying that it isn't infinite and eternal and some kind of invisible spirit or mind. Agreeably some theists don't get the logical ramifications of such a thing. Most atheists don't either. But that's their problem.
Even Dawkins admitted that no one really believes god is an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud. Yet it's this straw man that most atheists set themselves against. Now that really is something 99% of people who believe in god don't accept
99% of people who believe in God believe in an interventionist God who can and does interfere in the lives of human beings. As I understand it, you don't believe in God in that sense..
"I believe everything is engineered by god. I don't believe intervention is needed nor logically possible. Someone can't intervene upon an action of their own doing. Most theists believe everything is engineered by god. I think this is more central to an argument over what god is than whether it answers our prayers or not. A god can exist, make everything, love us, and orchestrate everything in accord with an unfathomable plan but not bother listening to or answering our prayers. If such a god existed I think all parties would have to agree that theists were far closer to being right than atheists. That's where the line in the sand is imo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?
Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable.
Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest
Only if you define God in a way that 99% of people who believe in him don't accept
I don't see anyone who believes in god saying that it isn't infinite and eternal and some kind of invisible spirit or mind. Agreeably some theists don't get the logical ramifications of such a thing. Most atheists don't either. But that's their problem.
Even Dawkins admitted that no one really believes god is an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud. Yet it's this straw man that most atheists set themselves against. Now that really is something 99% of people who believe in god don't accept
99% of people who believe in God believe in an interventionist God who can and does interfere in the lives of human beings. As I understand it, you don't believe in God in that sense..
I believe everything is engineered by god. I don't believe intervention is needed nor logically possible. Someone can't intervene upon an action of their own doing. Most theists believe everything is engineered by god. I think this is more central to an argument over what god is than whether it answers our prayers or not. A god can exist, make everything, love us, and orchestrate everything in accord with an unfathomable plan but not bother listening to or answering our prayers. If such a god existed I think all parties would have to agree that theists were far closer to being right than atheists. That's where the line in the sand is imo "I disagree. If you posit a god who exists but where life would be exactly the same for human beings if he didn't exist, then for all practical purposes, you're the same as atheist. You and I both agree that the world exists and that it operates on a naturalistic basis. I don't purport to know how that came about. You say it's due to God's unfathomable plan. Our difference is purely semantic, whilst we both differ radically with someone who says natural events can be altered via prayer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude !
Cool! got any evidence of that or is it just what you've been told
Yes, get yourself a boat and a powerful laser level and a plank and a marker pen, take the boat out and mark where the laser level is on the boat with a marker pen, then go out a few km, then take another mark, you will need a long board, over about 3km the difference will be as much as 20 feet. That’s one method, there’s plenty more. With the correct calculations you can work out the shape, by knowing the earth distance etc. Hope this helps X "The earth allegedly curves at around 8" per mile but tests over far greater distances have shown no evidence of curvature...like i said do your own research | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?
Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable.
Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest "Zweet! I'll get me thinking cap on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree. If you posit a god who exists but where life would be exactly the same for human beings if he didn't exist, then for all practical purposes, you're the same as atheist. You and I both agree that the world exists and that it operates on a naturalistic basis. I don't purport to know how that came about. You say it's due to God's unfathomable plan. Our difference is purely semantic, whilst we both differ radically with someone who says natural events can be altered via prayer. " Still hung up on this one? We disagree. You are of the opinion that a bunch of dumb laws and forces are responsible for the existence of everything and that this is what "nature" is. I am of the opinion that "nature" doesn't exist nor does it mean anything as a word. Instead everything is manipulated by an intelligent agency that has some kind of purpose in doing all this.
Until you can show me how we could have come into existence without a god, I'm of the opinion that without a god we wouldn't exist. So no... life wouldn't be the same. Life wouldn't exist.
There is no such thing as "natural events". It is a meaningless phrase that doesn't hold any logical value unless you can tell me what "nature" is?
I'd say we differ quite drastically. I don't mind. I think humanity is benefitted when people see things from different points of view. And who knows... maybe in your universe there isn't a god? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude !
Cool! got any evidence of that or is it just what you've been told
Yes, get yourself a boat and a powerful laser level and a plank and a marker pen, take the boat out and mark where the laser level is on the boat with a marker pen, then go out a few km, then take another mark, you will need a long board, over about 3km the difference will be as much as 20 feet. That’s one method, there’s plenty more. With the correct calculations you can work out the shape, by knowing the earth distance etc. Hope this helps X
The earth allegedly curves at around 8" per mile but tests over far greater distances have shown no evidence of curvature...like i said do your own research "So you’ve just ignored what I’ve said, well done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to be serious the only reason why multiverse theory was proposed was for anti-theological reasons (to try and explain the existence of the universe without need for a god) and as yet another means to prevent Big Bang theory from being falsified... yet again. Both are truly dumb and quite frankly unscientific reasons for proposing a scientific theory. As it's also a theory which is, by definition, unfalsifiable, it's also not actually science. Hence it's all just a whole lot of cock. That's the long winded version of my original reply
Why can't there be one universe without a god?
As per the op, it's not that such a thing is an impossibility (although there is no logic yet to defend it as being possible)... but that it all just seems too uncannily coincidental and ridiculously precise based on current theories. But then... they're probably wrong anyway so maybe it's not
So, if I made up a story about something, all theoretical of course, and had a convincing theory, people would believe me?
Why not? Believability is an important component of why some beliefs are more prevalent than others. Heck, the idea that the earth orbits the sun is directly contradicted by the evidence of the sun passing over our heads. No wonder so many people believed something else for so long. It was simply much more believable. But science has finally won most of us over to it. It has made a persuasive enough case. It's now believable.
Similarly, the notion of a god may be wrong. But it's more believable than the alternative at this point. Maybe over time science will win us to an alternative vision of the universe? Or maybe not? Either way it's destined to be survival of the believablest
Zweet! I'll get me thinking cap on "You might find it a bit more difficult than that haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree. If you posit a god who exists but where life would be exactly the same for human beings if he didn't exist, then for all practical purposes, you're the same as atheist. You and I both agree that the world exists and that it operates on a naturalistic basis. I don't purport to know how that came about. You say it's due to God's unfathomable plan. Our difference is purely semantic, whilst we both differ radically with someone who says natural events can be altered via prayer. Still hung up on this one? We disagree. You are of the opinion that a bunch of dumb laws and forces are responsible for the existence of everything and that this is what "nature" is. I am of the opinion that "nature" doesn't exist nor does it mean anything as a word. Instead everything is manipulated by an intelligent agency that has some kind of purpose in doing all this.
Until you can show me how we could have come into existence without a god, I'm of the opinion that without a god we wouldn't exist. So no... life wouldn't be the same. Life wouldn't exist.
There is no such thing as "natural events". It is a meaningless phrase that doesn't hold any logical value unless you can tell me what "nature" is?
I'd say we differ quite drastically. I don't mind. I think humanity is benefitted when people see things from different points of view. And who knows... maybe in your universe there isn't a god? "As I say, I don't purport to know how the universe came about, but I know from my own experience that the traditional Christian/Islamic God couldn't possibly exist. Life does exist. Nature is the way we see the world operating all around us. You call all that God or an aspect of God. I don't. As I say the difference is purely semantic. It has no practical bearing on our views of how the world works. On the other hand you do differ radically in practical terms with a Christian who believes that if he prays God can make a decision to cure his cancer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude !
Cool! got any evidence of that or is it just what you've been told
Yes, get yourself a boat and a powerful laser level and a plank and a marker pen, take the boat out and mark where the laser level is on the boat with a marker pen, then go out a few km, then take another mark, you will need a long board, over about 3km the difference will be as much as 20 feet. That’s one method, there’s plenty more. With the correct calculations you can work out the shape, by knowing the earth distance etc. Hope this helps X
The earth allegedly curves at around 8" per mile but tests over far greater distances have shown no evidence of curvature...like i said do your own research
So you’ve just ignored what I’ve said, well done."Dude, are you serious, In what way did i ignore what you said, is it because ive not toddled off in my little boat with said laser level. I gave you an answer but its ok, you carry on in your little close minded bubble. Well done! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree. If you posit a god who exists but where life would be exactly the same for human beings if he didn't exist, then for all practical purposes, you're the same as atheist. You and I both agree that the world exists and that it operates on a naturalistic basis. I don't purport to know how that came about. You say it's due to God's unfathomable plan. Our difference is purely semantic, whilst we both differ radically with someone who says natural events can be altered via prayer. Still hung up on this one? We disagree. You are of the opinion that a bunch of dumb laws and forces are responsible for the existence of everything and that this is what "nature" is. I am of the opinion that "nature" doesn't exist nor does it mean anything as a word. Instead everything is manipulated by an intelligent agency that has some kind of purpose in doing all this.
Until you can show me how we could have come into existence without a god, I'm of the opinion that without a god we wouldn't exist. So no... life wouldn't be the same. Life wouldn't exist.
There is no such thing as "natural events". It is a meaningless phrase that doesn't hold any logical value unless you can tell me what "nature" is?
I'd say we differ quite drastically. I don't mind. I think humanity is benefitted when people see things from different points of view. And who knows... maybe in your universe there isn't a god? "Is the onus not on you to prove we came in to existence because of a god rather than proving that god wasn't involved? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude !
Cool! got any evidence of that or is it just what you've been told
Yes, get yourself a boat and a powerful laser level and a plank and a marker pen, take the boat out and mark where the laser level is on the boat with a marker pen, then go out a few km, then take another mark, you will need a long board, over about 3km the difference will be as much as 20 feet. That’s one method, there’s plenty more. With the correct calculations you can work out the shape, by knowing the earth distance etc. Hope this helps X
The earth allegedly curves at around 8" per mile but tests over far greater distances have shown no evidence of curvature...like i said do your own research
So you’ve just ignored what I’ve said, well done.
Dude, are you serious, In what way did i ignore what you said, is it because ive not toddled off in my little boat with said laser level. I gave you an answer but its ok, you carry on in your little close minded bubble. Well done!"Toodle pip, I’m bored of you now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree. If you posit a god who exists but where life would be exactly the same for human beings if he didn't exist, then for all practical purposes, you're the same as atheist. You and I both agree that the world exists and that it operates on a naturalistic basis. I don't purport to know how that came about. You say it's due to God's unfathomable plan. Our difference is purely semantic, whilst we both differ radically with someone who says natural events can be altered via prayer. Still hung up on this one? We disagree. You are of the opinion that a bunch of dumb laws and forces are responsible for the existence of everything and that this is what "nature" is. I am of the opinion that "nature" doesn't exist nor does it mean anything as a word. Instead everything is manipulated by an intelligent agency that has some kind of purpose in doing all this.
Until you can show me how we could have come into existence without a god, I'm of the opinion that without a god we wouldn't exist. So no... life wouldn't be the same. Life wouldn't exist.
There is no such thing as "natural events". It is a meaningless phrase that doesn't hold any logical value unless you can tell me what "nature" is?
I'd say we differ quite drastically. I don't mind. I think humanity is benefitted when people see things from different points of view. And who knows... maybe in your universe there isn't a god?
As I say, I don't purport to know how the universe came about, but I know from my own experience that the traditional Christian/Islamic God couldn't possibly exist.
Life does exist. Nature is the way we see the world operating all around us. You call all that God or an aspect of God. I don't.
As I say the difference is purely semantic. It has no practical bearing on our views of how the world works.
On the other hand you do differ radically in practical terms with a Christian who believes that if he prays God can make a decision to cure his cancer. "That's right. You keep telling yourself that because the car didn't stop my belief that the person driving it wasn't interested in picking us up is nearer to your view that it was a driverless car than the Christian view it was a taxi with a person driving it. My model of reality is far far closer to theirs than yours. But I agree. I'm uneasy with the dominant Christian view of god. But I'm no less baffled by the claim "nature", whatever that is, created and runs itself. Indeed I can't even grasp what's being proposed there... a perpetual motion machine? If "nature" is alive, intelligently transforming itself, manipulating events in accord with some unfathomable plan, loves us and communicates with us, leading us forward in our own journey through life... then it isn't really "nature" at all is it? I mean the whole point of "nature" is precisely that it isn't god, that it's subject to rules, not free to make up it's own at any given moment or whim. If you're saying "nature" is all those things then you're using the wrong word. It's god. Can you see how meaningless the word "nature" is if you're willing to employ it to any use. I suspect in your mind if a god existed who did answer prayers and defied natural laws that too could be termed "nature". Are you sure you're not simply using the word to denote "that which exists"? In which case anything and everything is nature | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree. If you posit a god who exists but where life would be exactly the same for human beings if he didn't exist, then for all practical purposes, you're the same as atheist. You and I both agree that the world exists and that it operates on a naturalistic basis. I don't purport to know how that came about. You say it's due to God's unfathomable plan. Our difference is purely semantic, whilst we both differ radically with someone who says natural events can be altered via prayer. Still hung up on this one? We disagree. You are of the opinion that a bunch of dumb laws and forces are responsible for the existence of everything and that this is what "nature" is. I am of the opinion that "nature" doesn't exist nor does it mean anything as a word. Instead everything is manipulated by an intelligent agency that has some kind of purpose in doing all this.
Until you can show me how we could have come into existence without a god, I'm of the opinion that without a god we wouldn't exist. So no... life wouldn't be the same. Life wouldn't exist.
There is no such thing as "natural events". It is a meaningless phrase that doesn't hold any logical value unless you can tell me what "nature" is?
I'd say we differ quite drastically. I don't mind. I think humanity is benefitted when people see things from different points of view. And who knows... maybe in your universe there isn't a god?
Is the onus not on you to prove we came in to existence because of a god rather than proving that god wasn't involved?"No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t think you can compare flat earth theories to a multiverse theory. We know there isn’t a flat earth, we don’t know there isn’t a multiverse. I’m not saying there is a multiverse, but there’s a chance there is. There’s no chance the earth is flat we know that, apart from a few fuckwits who believe it. Open your mind and do your own research dude. Why do you believe we live on giant ball spinning through space orbiting the sun at over 60,000mph? How is it the north star always remains in the same place, it shouldn't if we are rotating like they say. Im not saying its flat or round, but until i see compelling evidence for one or the other I prefer to keep an open mind. Calling all units, calling all units, we have a live one ! The earth is neither flat or round, it’s a spheroid, dude !
Cool! got any evidence of that or is it just what you've been told
Yes, get yourself a boat and a powerful laser level and a plank and a marker pen, take the boat out and mark where the laser level is on the boat with a marker pen, then go out a few km, then take another mark, you will need a long board, over about 3km the difference will be as much as 20 feet. That’s one method, there’s plenty more. With the correct calculations you can work out the shape, by knowing the earth distance etc. Hope this helps X
The earth allegedly curves at around 8" per mile but tests over far greater distances have shown no evidence of curvature...like i said do your own research
So you’ve just ignored what I’ve said, well done.
Dude, are you serious, In what way did i ignore what you said, is it because ive not toddled off in my little boat with said laser level. I gave you an answer but its ok, you carry on in your little close minded bubble. Well done!
Toodle pip, I’m bored of you now."Suprise suprise, feel free to pop back when reality checks in with you. Toodles! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree. If you posit a god who exists but where life would be exactly the same for human beings if he didn't exist, then for all practical purposes, you're the same as atheist. You and I both agree that the world exists and that it operates on a naturalistic basis. I don't purport to know how that came about. You say it's due to God's unfathomable plan. Our difference is purely semantic, whilst we both differ radically with someone who says natural events can be altered via prayer. Still hung up on this one? We disagree. You are of the opinion that a bunch of dumb laws and forces are responsible for the existence of everything and that this is what "nature" is. I am of the opinion that "nature" doesn't exist nor does it mean anything as a word. Instead everything is manipulated by an intelligent agency that has some kind of purpose in doing all this.
Until you can show me how we could have come into existence without a god, I'm of the opinion that without a god we wouldn't exist. So no... life wouldn't be the same. Life wouldn't exist.
There is no such thing as "natural events". It is a meaningless phrase that doesn't hold any logical value unless you can tell me what "nature" is?
I'd say we differ quite drastically. I don't mind. I think humanity is benefitted when people see things from different points of view. And who knows... maybe in your universe there isn't a god?
Is the onus not on you to prove we came in to existence because of a god rather than proving that god wasn't involved?
No"Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
