Christians are arrogant as ? .
Options
Comments
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »And that is not what the big bang states
yes but the bvg bascially does it does not prove ? , just that existence had a start.
The big bang theory says that this/our universe had a beginning, not that existence itself had a beginning.
most physicists no longer think that there was no time before the Big Bang..[there is a]possibility that something or other has always been going on or that something or other always will be going on, or both..[there is]no reason to discount the possibility
Atheism Explained pg. 74-75, David Steele
There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.
The Hidden Reality pg. 4, Brian Greene
it does not matter what scientific model you use, the BVG Theorem proves that no matter the scientific model there must still have been an absolute beginning TO EVERYTHING. -
The BVG theorem does not state that existence had a beginning but that inflation has a beginning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Q4CpjX0RE
And the BVG theorem is still referring to "universe" in the sense of "our/this" universe and not EVERYTHING/EXISTENCE in its totality. Again, I quote:
There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.
The Hidden Reality pg. 4, Brian Greene
-
The title of the video is The BVG Theorem does not show the Universe began to exist, just in case you, like me, cannot see videos once they are posted to the forum
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »The title of the video is The BVG Theorem does not show the Universe began to exist, just in case you, like me, cannot see videos once they are posted to the forum
that video is flawed and it's coming from someone who is clearly reading from a paper but not from the theory itself. Do you want to hear it right from the horse's mouth if you have the patience, time and understanding watch this whole video or to make it easy for you only WATCH THE FIRST 12 MINUTES. this is from the famous scientist himself that created the bvg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QSZNpLzcCw -
that video is flawed
How so?and it's coming from someone who is clearly reading from a paper but not from the theory itself
He's quoting from the BVG theorem paper itself
-
Either way, like I said, the term "universe" that the BVG theorem uses is for our current system, not existence in its totality. You have to observe the context in which the word is used.
There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.
The Hidden Reality pg. 4, Brian Greene
-
this anton clip is like 9 minutes.. put the pride away for 9 minutes and watch a damn video and really watch it.. pay attention.. can you put the pride in your pocket for 9 minutes?
Watched it.
I don't know what he "saw" on his deathbed; for me to even comment on that would be mere conjecture and speculation. Maybe this, maybe that. No one really knows, which is what theism amounts to: guessing.
@PK_TK_187
You were right. I'll never get that time back. -
i told you so
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Either way, like I said, the term "universe" that the BVG theorem uses is for our current system, not existence in its totality. You have to observe the context in which the word is used.
There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.
The Hidden Reality pg. 4, Brian Greene
The bvg theory proposes that their was no other system before this one in other words their was no other universe before this one and that universe or any possible universes sprang into being at once. also quoting the explaintion given by brian greene's book hidden reality is counter productive to your argument because that book and the multiverse theory it proposes is wildly speculative and even if you could prove the multiverse it does not change anything because they would start the same way.
That the video you posted is wrong because the reader is trying to separate the start of the universe from the inflation of the universe but the two are intertwined the start of the universe is inflation. The bvg theory states that inflation WAS not ETERNAL THEREFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS NOT ETERNAl; therefore the universe which is anything that ever existed is the universe. It is impossible to prove that there is something outside of our universe because anything that exist would be part of our universe. I DOUBT YOU WATCHED THE VIDEOS I POSTED. -
The bvg theory proposes that their was no other system before this one in other words their was no other universe before this one and that universe or any possible universes sprang into being at once.
The BVG theory states that inflation had a beginning and that inflation alone is not enough to explain the existence of the universe. It states that there will have to be a new physics to show the correct conditions at the boundary, before the inflation event. That means that inflation itself requires a cause; that inflation alone cannot be used to provide proof of an eternal universe.
The big bang theory says that the universe BEGAN to expand at one point, which means that our current universe/system as it is had a beginning but existence itself does not because as stated earlier, only inflation had a beginning.also quoting the explaintion given by brian greene's book hidden reality is counter productive to your argument because that book and the multiverse theory it proposes is wildly speculative and even if you could prove the multiverse it does not change anything because they would start the same way.
It does not matter what the book as a whole proposes or explains. The point of that quote in particular was to provide for you an explanation that the term "universe" has different meanings depending on context. I could have used any other quote from any other book that said the same, regardless of the remainder of the book's content.That the video you posted is wrong because the reader is trying to separate the start of the universe from the inflation of the universe but the two are intertwined the start of the universe is inflation.
Yes, the start of our universe/system began with inflation, and the bvg theorem states that inflation had a beginning, thus our universe/system had a beginning but there was a point before inflation so again, our current system had a beginning but existence in its totality does not have a beginning.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »The bvg theory proposes that their was no other system before this one in other words their was no other universe before this one and that universe or any possible universes sprang into being at once.
The BVG theory states that inflation had a beginning and that inflation alone is not enough to explain the existence of the universe. It states that there will have to be a new physics to show the correct conditions at the boundary, before the inflation event. That means that inflation itself requires a cause; that inflation alone cannot be used to provide proof of an eternal universe.
The big bang theory says that the universe BEGAN to expand at one point, which means that our current universe/system as it is had a beginning but existence itself does not because as stated earlier, only inflation had a beginning.also quoting the explaintion given by brian greene's book hidden reality is counter productive to your argument because that book and the multiverse theory it proposes is wildly speculative and even if you could prove the multiverse it does not change anything because they would start the same way.
It does not matter what the book as a whole proposes or explains. The point of that quote in particular was to provide for you an explanation that the term "universe" has different meanings depending on context. I could have used any other quote from any other book that said the same, regardless of the remainder of the book's content.That the video you posted is wrong because the reader is trying to separate the start of the universe from the inflation of the universe but the two are intertwined the start of the universe is inflation.
Yes, the start of our universe/system began with inflation, and the bvg theorem states that inflation had a beginning, thus our universe/system had a beginning but there was a point before inflation so again, our current system had a beginning but existence in its totality does not have a beginning.
THERE WAS NO POINT BEFORE INFLATION I KNOW THE TERM UNIVERSE HAS DIFFERENT MEANINGs but in the context of the bvg it refers to the universe meaning all of existence. existence started at inflation before then there was no space there was no time. There was only potential. No one has ever proved that there was anything before this universe THAT is why i keep saying the universe had a start. you are right the bvg does not provide proof that the universe is eternal but that is what i have been saying all along, the universe is not eternal, universe here meaning all of existence. if we are seaching for new physics when they find it then your argument can hold, until then the universe which is all there is and all we can prove, had a start. What caused this start, some would say ? some would say quantum fluctuations in a vaccum of course quantum fluctuation are not empty they are actually filled with potentiality they seem to be the real laws of nature but how did those laws come about we do not know we only know that they seem to exist and we cannot prove that they always did, but that is a whole other discussion. -
THERE WAS NO POINT BEFORE INFLATION
Science disagrees with you
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/what-came-before-the-big-bang-two-of-the-worlds-leading-physicists-present-a-radical-theory.htmlexistence started at inflation
Our current system started at the moment of inflation.No one has ever proved that there was anything before this universe THAT is why i keep saying the universe had a start.
And I keep telling you that our universe/system had a start but that existence itself did not. No one knows for sure and exactly what was there before the big bang but that's what science is working towards and if it was impossible, they wouldn't be working towards figuring out what happened before the big bang would they?you are right the bvg does not provide proof that the universe is eternal but that is what i have been saying all along, the universe is not eternal, universe here meaning all of existence.
No, the BVG theorem says that we cannot use inflation alone to prove an eternal universe. There has to be some other type of physics in addition to, to explain infinity.
-
Bottom line is, physicists no longer believe that there was no time or existence, AT ALL, before the big bang so your argument in attempt to use science (that you disagree with anyway) against me fails.
You believe ? created the universe.
I do not believe in ? (s) including your ? and I believe that existence has always existed in some form or another.
Bottom Line. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Bottom line is, physicists no longer believe that there was no time or existence, AT ALL, before the big bang so your argument in attempt to use science (that you disagree with anyway) against me fails.
You believe ? created the universe.
I do not believe in ? (s) including your ? and I believe that existence has always existed in some form or another.
Bottom Line.
You do not set bottom lines, THE ARROGANCE OF ATHEIST. I don't think you watched the videos. i don't believe you have the education to understand them. Even if you did watch them, the only reply you have given is a video that made a flawed argument and an outdated article that is composed of only one other theory that is much less respected because it is supported by nothing.
The only thing that could have existed before the universe is either ? or quantum fluctuations which we really do not understand. Saying the universe came into being by Q.F IS THE SAME AS SAYING THAT THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO BEING SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE.
The bvg and the big bang are the best theories they have the most proof all the other theories are fantasy in comparison. The lecture video i posted covered why the article you posted was wrong, the bvg covers a wide variety of cosmologies AND THE ONE GIVEN BY THAT ARTICLE IS ONE OF THEM. Like I SAID EARLIER YOU ARE JUST BIASED TOWARDS THE THE ETERNAL EXISTENCE THEORIES BECAUSE YOU ARE A BUDDIST. The reality of this discussion is that none of the theories brought up by us can be proven with out a shadow of a doubt, but the ones i hold too do HAVE THE MOST PROOF.
-
Like I SAID EARLIER YOU ARE JUST BIASED TOWARDS THE THE ETERNAL EXISTENCE THEORIES BECAUSE YOU ARE A BUDDIST.
Buddhists don't have to accept the eternal universe theory so Idk what you are talking about
Directly from the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta:
"Malunkyaputta, it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.
"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.
..
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
-
You do not set bottom lines
It takes two people to debate.The only thing that could have existed before the universe is either ? or quantum fluctuations which we really do not understand
So you accept that there was a time before the big bang?? I agree with you. The only difference is that you believe ? started it all.i don't believe you have the education to understand them
I don't think you do. When I posted that video, you didn't even know dude was reading from the bvg theorem papers. That right there tells me everything I need to know. I've been continually correcting you on various subjects; you can interpret that however you want. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Like I SAID EARLIER YOU ARE JUST BIASED TOWARDS THE THE ETERNAL EXISTENCE THEORIES BECAUSE YOU ARE A BUDDIST.
Buddhists don't have to accept the eternal universe theory so Idk what you are talking about
Directly from the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta:
"Malunkyaputta, it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.
"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.
..
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
get the ? out of here with this ? this is the same as saying we don't believe in anything except removing stress. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »You do not set bottom lines
It takes two people to debate.The only thing that could have existed before the universe is either ? or quantum fluctuations which we really do not understand
So you accept that there was a time before the big bang?? I agree with you. The only difference is that you believe ? started it all.i don't believe you have the education to understand them
I don't think you do. When I posted that video, you didn't even know dude was reading from the bvg theorem papers. That right there tells me everything I need to know. I've been continually correcting you on various subjects; you can interpret that however you want.
There was no time before the big bang time is for the universe there had to be space for there to be time.
In the video you posted the guy is not just reading from the bvg papers. he reads a small part of it takes it out of context and then goes on to read from other sources. thus giving a twisted opinion of the bvg he also before he starts reading anything, gives his biased opinion on theist view of the bvg. you have not been correcting me on anything. you a decleared atheist know next nothing about ? yet you feel you should still define what those who believe in him think, and what the nature of their ? is. PURE ARROGANCE. You know nothing about quantum physics and you also know next to nothing about the modern christian conception of ? .
-
get the ? out of here with this ? this is the same as saying we don't believe in anything except removing stress.
This right here is the definition of arrogance ^^^
You're trying to tell me about my own religion when you know nothing about it and you're making yourself look ignorant.
What do you think Buddhism is all about if not The 4 Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path?
The Buddha said, "I teach one thing and one thing only: suffering and the end of suffering," which is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. In his first sermon at Deer Park, he taught the Four Noble Truths of the existence of suffering, the cause of suffering, that the cause if suffering can end, and the path to the end of suffering. This doctrine, expounded by the Buddha in his major discourses and expanded upon in expositions by his closest disciples, underlies the basic Buddhist teachings that have evolved since his time.
http://www.tricycle.com/new-buddhism/teachings-and-texts/first-sermon-buddha
The Four Noble Truths is as follows:
Truth 1: Dukkha (usually translated as "suffering" or "unsatisfactoriness")
Truth 2: The Origin of Dukkha
Truth 3: The Cessation of Dukkha
Truth 4: The Eightfold Path; The Path to the End of Dukkha
The Eightfold Path is as follows:
1. Right View/Understanding
2. Right Intention/Thought
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration.
This is why you have such a difficult time understanding concepts more complex than Buddhism; because you are hard headed and ignorant and are only out to prove a point -
Seperate from my Buddhist way of life, I believe that existence itself has always existed in some form or another and will continue to do so eternally. This has nothing to do with Buddhism, as you can plainly see from the sutta I just posted. If you didn't read it, do so. If not, so be it, but please refrain from basing your views on pure assumptions.There was no time before the big bang time is for the universe there had to be space for there to be time.
Then your ? cannot exist; he could not have created the universe. Your beliefs come from the Bible which infers that ? exists in time -- you cannot get around that. You can change your beliefs to fit your argument but then you are straying away from what your Bible says.
The reason why I believe that existence has always existed is that I do not believe existence can spring out of pure, actual nothingness for no reason. That is just as absurd, imo, as to claim that ? , a conscious being, created the universe ex nihilo. I've expressed that many times on this board before I converted to Buddhism. Deal with it.[you] know next [to] nothing about ? yet you feel you should still define what those who believe in him think, and what the nature of their ? is.
Apparently, you know nothing about your own ? . I'm only going by what your Bible and your religion says. I'm not making anything up. I'm just telling you how, IMO, it doesn't add up. I wasn't even talking to you to begin with. Nobody said you had to talk to me about my opinion, so stop crying.
-
Let me help you
HEAVEN EXISTS IN TIME
Revelations 8:1
When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.
? EXISTS IN TIME
John 17:24
Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world
Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Let me help you
HEAVEN EXISTS IN TIME
Revelations 8:1
When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.
? EXISTS IN TIME
John 17:24
Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world
Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
Quotes taken out of context that you do not understand. I ALREADY EXPLAINED EPHESIANS 1: 4 GO BACK AND READ IT i do not feel like going over it again. all i am going to tell you is to read it a carefully. Pay attention to he chose us in him. EPHESIANS 1:4 IS A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE.
THE PROBLEM WITH REVELATION 8:1 AS WITH ALL OF REVELATION IS THAT IT IS A MYSTERY BOOK and people have interpretated it to mean anything, THE HEAVEN HERE COULD BE REFERRING 2 OF THE 3 because like i explained to you only two of them have time. ALSO from whose perspective is this coming from? not gods but mans because it is a book that is being revealed to a man. There is a large misconception among atheist that EVERY word in the bible is coming from ? but that is very wrong headed.
JOHN 17: 24 keep in mind jesus is part of what is called the godhead so he here is praying for himself so yes he knew himself before creation. and there was no time before creation and ? still knew and loved himself because ? can do that.
please stop with the " helping me" ? . try helping yourself, stop being is ignorant and arrogant. it's like talking to a child. -
THE PROBLEM WITH REVELATION 8:1 AS WITH ALL OF REVELATION IS THAT IT IS A MYSTERY BOOK and people have interpretated it to mean anything, THE HEAVEN HERE COULD BE REFERRING 2 OF THE 3 because like i explained to you only two of them have time.
Could be. Which heaven is it? You don't know.
But if you don't like that one, take this one:
Revelation 12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon
For a war to break out, there has to be some type of action. Time is a succession of events or actions, whether mental or physical.keep in mind jesus is part of what is called the godhead so he here is praying for himself so yes he knew himself before creation. and there was no time before creation and ? still knew and loved himself because ? can do that
To love something, you have to be familiar with it or conscious of it and consciousness requires awareness and awareness requires knowledge of whatever you are aware of. Knowledge comes by experience and/or education, therefore, some type of time has to elapse before you can be able to love something.
If ? loved himself before creation, that denotes differentiated time before creation, as the Bible says. BEFORE creation.Pay attention to he chose us in him
Ephesians says that ? CHOSE before creation which implies some sort of mental activity going on. In order to choose, you have to first be able to think, and thinking is a succession of mental events, in time.There is a large misconception among atheist that EVERY word in the bible is coming from ? but that is very wrong headed.
None of the words come from ? , because ? does not exist.
Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which ? , that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In order to promise, there has to be some type of time elapsing. A promise requires mental activity. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Seperate from my Buddhist way of life, I believe that existence itself has always existed in some form or another and will continue to do so eternally. This has nothing to do with Buddhism, as you can plainly see from the sutta I just posted. If you didn't read it, do so. If not, so be it, but please refrain from basing your views on pure assumptions.There was no time before the big bang time is for the universe there had to be space for there to be time.
Then your ? cannot exist; he could not have created the universe. Your beliefs come from the Bible which infers that ? exists in time -- you cannot get around that. You can change your beliefs to fit your argument but then you are straying away from what your Bible says.
The reason why I believe that existence has always existed is that I do not believe existence can spring out of pure, actual nothingness for no reason. That is just as absurd, imo, as to claim that ? , a conscious being, created the universe ex nihilo.[you] know next [to] nothing about ? yet you feel you should still define what those who believe in him think, and what the nature of their ? is.
Apparently, you know nothing about your own ? . I'm only going by what your Bible and your religion says. I'm not making anything up. I'm just telling you how, IMO, it doesn't add up. I wasn't even talking to you to begin with. Nobody said you had to talk to me about my opinion, so stop crying.
The bible does not infer that ? exist in time it infers that he can affect time and what we see, those of us WHO study the bible is that ? does with time as he pleases. Example peter 3:8
But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE ARBITRARINESS OF TIME TO ? . You know nothing about my ? but you have made faulty assumptions based on your own foolish logic. You do not believe in science unless it fits your views, current science basically says that the universe came out of nothing but as they define it nothing is really the pontential for something. a.k.a Q.F.
This is an open forum anyone can talk here if you did not want to debate with me you should have said so , instead you ran your ? mouth tried to twist what the bible says about the nature of ? . -
You do not believe in science unless it fits your views, current science basically says that the universe came out of nothing but as they define it nothing is really the pontential for something. a.k.a Q.F.
Wrong again, brother man. The scientific view of "nothing" is not really "nothing at all", like theists usually assert.
The “nothing” of the vacuum of space actually consists of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances measurable at the Planck scale—the length at which the structure of spacetime is dominated by quantum gravity. At this scale, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles, thereby producing “something” from “nothing.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=much-ado-about-nothing
Theists claim that ? created the universe ex nihilo, out of pure nothing (nothing at all) which is highly absurd.
That's your problem. You're trying to use science to attack me but you don't understand science. And science disagrees with your ? theory. That's the crazy part.
