Atheists under attack

[blues1 10]

oh no eternal damnation and the fires of hell await my unbaptised children and i for not believing in something without proof some god of love!

[janie48 95]

perhaps the quote would be more fitting if it read- 'let he who is without homosexual tendencies cast the first stone'. As homosexuals are clearly exempt from the not being judged by others quote according to the teachings of the bible.

 

I'm slightly curious about your preoccupation with homosexual tendencies,thats twice you have a addressed me on the issue.

May i suggest you contact a Gay Christian organisation if you wish to enquire further about the very few references from the approx sixty books in the bible.

 

An alternative view may be provided by a Nick Griffin equivalent.

 

Mysogyny references in the bible may also be of interest to you if you wish to delve a little deeper.

[Ryedo40 10]

I didn’t say it does, but it would involve everything coming from nothing, which in my opinion is very unlikely, and the vacuum of space doesn’t count as nothing, it’s something.

 

 

When physicists say the universe came from nothing, I think they mean a void(which is technically something but void of anything; it's as nothing as things are going to get). But something to do with the laws of quantum field theory, means the void is unstable; so with all the fluctuations going on, the void can't remain in that state of nothingness. So it's as if particles or matter are forced into existence - or that the nothing undergoes a spontaneous phase transition into something.

 

I'm no physicist, but that's how I understand it.

[maxmaximus 10]

When physicists say the universe came from nothing, I think they mean a void(which is technically something but void of anything; it's as nothing as things are going to get). But something to do with the laws of quantum field theory, means the void is unstable; so with all the fluctuations going on, the void can't remain in that state of nothingness. So it's as if particles or matter are forced into existence - or that the nothing undergoes a spontaneous phase transition into something.

 

I'm no physicist, but that's how I understand it.

 

I think its Stephen Hawking’s hypothesis that the universe can pop into existence from nothing, I'm not sure what his definition of nothing is, is it an empty vacuum with no vacuum energy, which is something or is it non existence.

[maxmaximus 10]

Yet when questioned on your opinion you claim that your explanation is lacking in vital details... I can only assume that your explanation as written here is the explanation, I'm not going to accept that there is more to it unless you explain what the 'more' is.

It's not necessary for you to accept my opinion for me to hold it.

 

Obviously the energy doesn't disappear, no more than it did when the black hole was formed.

So it is still part of the universe, thats what I thought.

 

I'm not sure that a failure in your imagination should be the basis for anything. I don't actually believe that you are better at imagining infinity and eternity than nothing. There all concepts that are beyond our monkey brains except in abstract terms.

 

When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains must be the truth, I have eliminated what I think is impossible and what I have left is an infinite universe that as always existed.

[PaliRichard 10]

The evidence I have seen does support my opinion that the universe as always existed, and until someone manages recreate nothing and then create matter and energy from it, it will remain my opinion[/Quote]

 

Either you're back pedalling or you genuinley don't see what you've done.

 

You said 'the evidence', not your opinion but the evidence pointed to the 'fact' that the universe has always existed.

 

You then said it was just your opinion based on the evidence.

 

But the 'evidence' doesn't point to the universe always existing, it doesn't know what happened before the universe, that's why it's all hypothosis and not theory - you don't seem to be able to understand this simple point that more and more people are trying to point out to you.

 

The 'evidence' does not point to an infinite universe, you are interpreting the evidence and coming to that conclusion based on it - but the evidence itself doesn't say that.

 

You are entitled to think that, that's your opinion, but you have catergorically said that the evidence suggests it too, it doesn't, if it did it would be theory, it's not, it's merely one of many ways of interpreting the evidence. There are many scientists who interpret the same evidence in different ways and many conflicting hypothoses based on that evidence, the reason they are only hypothoses is that the evidence isn't strong enough to verify one over the other - but you have been saying consistantly that the evidence does say a certain thing.

 

It does not - you have interpreted the evidence and come to that conclusion - this is a very different thing to the evidence 'saying' it.

 

 

Because nothing and everything spontaneously popping into existence from nothing are just as unlikely as a God creating everything from nothing[/Quote]

 

Why?

 

Again you're using nothing here than your own prejudice that you favour an eternal universe over a finite one - they are both equal premises and both are possible.

[Ryedo40 10]

...is it an empty vacuum with no vacuum energy, which is something or is it non existence.

 

Here's a thought: maybe non-existence - or its potential - inadvertently gives rise to emptiness and unstable voids. If that was the case, then we really would be getting something from nothing.

 

 

Pop! there goes another fuse... time to stop thinking.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Ryedo40

[Cyclone 10]

It's not necessary for you to accept my opinion for me to hold it.

 

So it is still part of the universe, thats what I thought.

 

 

 

When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains must be the truth, I have eliminated what I think is impossible and what I have left is an infinite universe that as always existed.

 

You have a supposition that 'nothing' is impossible because you can't imagine it.

 

You pretend that you can imagine eternity and infinity and so claim they are possible.

 

None of these concepts actually make sense within the context of the universe in which we exist though.

[danot 10]

I'm slightly curious about your preoccupation with homosexual tendencies,thats twice you have a addressed me on the issue.

May i suggest you contact a Gay Christian organisation if you wish to enquire further about the very few references from the approx sixty books in the bible.

 

An alternative view may be provided by a Nick Griffin equivalent.

 

Mysogyny references in the bible may also be of interest to you if you wish to delve a little deeper.

 

my reason for mentioning homosexuals twice is because the way in which they are viewed and treated by religious factions makes a mockery of this -"Judge not and thy shall not be judged" none judgemental nonesense that the Bible preaches but quite clearly doesn't practice. And why you feel the need to recomend that I contact the gay christian organisation is beyond me? Or are you implying that I may have repressed feelings of a homosexual nature because I 've referred to homophobia within religion for a second time? Well' maybe I have, it would explain why I consider the-"Judge not and thy shall not be judged" quote a load of idealistic religious twoddle.

[janie48 95]

my reason for mentioning homosexuals twice is because the way in which they are viewed and treated by religious factions makes a mockery of this -"Judge not and thy shall not be judged" none judgemental nonesense that the Bible preaches but quite clearly doesn't practice. And why you feel the need to recomend that I contact the gay christian organisation is beyond me? Or are you implying that I may have repressed feelings of a homosexual nature because I 've referred to homophobia within religion for a second time? Well' maybe I have, it would explain why I consider the-"Judge not and thy shall not be judged" quote a load of idealistic religious twoddle.

 

I wasn't implying you have repressed feelings of a homosexual nature because your sexual oriantation isn't an issue as far as i'm concerned,as neither are your views on the bible.

The only thing i do have an issue with is the sometimes rather judgemental patronising manner expressed in your comments.

[maxmaximus 10]

Either you're back pedalling or you genuinley don't see what you've done.

 

You said 'the evidence', not your opinion but the evidence pointed to the 'fact' that the universe has always existed.

 

You then said it was just your opinion based on the evidence.

 

Yep that’s right the evidence I have seen supports my opinion that the universe as always existed, it doesn’t follow that you will agree. Think about the evidence presented in a criminal trial, so members of the jury think it’s enough to find someone guilty and some don’t, we all form opinions based on evidence but not necessarily the same opinion. You disagree with me and I can live with that.

 

 

But the 'evidence' doesn't point to the universe always existing, it doesn't know what happened before the universe, that's why it's all hypothosis and not theory - you don't seem to be able to understand this simple point that more and more people are trying to point out to you.

 

The 'evidence' does not point to an infinite universe, you are interpreting the evidence and coming to that conclusion based on it - but the evidence itself doesn't say that.

Thats your opnion and I support your right to hold it.

 

 

 

You are entitled to think that, that's your opinion, but you have catergorically said that the evidence suggests it too, it doesn't, if it did it would be theory, it's not, it's merely one of many ways of interpreting the evidence. There are many scientists who interpret the same evidence in different ways and many conflicting hypothoses based on that evidence, the reason they are only hypothoses is that the evidence isn't strong enough to verify one over the other - but you have been saying consistantly that the evidence does say a certain thing.

 

Thank you for alowing me to have an opinion.

 

It does not - you have interpreted the evidence and come to that conclusion - this is a very different thing to the evidence 'saying' it.

 

Yes its my interpritation of the evidance that supports my opinion that the universe as always existed.

 

 

Why?

 

Again you're using nothing here than your own prejudice that you favour an eternal universe over a finite one - they are both equal premises and both are possible.

 

Because there isn’t a single shred of evidence that nothing or God is possible, no evidence the something can be created from nothing, no evidence that matter and energy can cease to exist. Some evidence that matter and energy are recycled and change from one state to another. And there is no reason at all to think the universe hasn’t always existed.

 

There is no evidence that the universe as boundaries or a point at which existence stops, there is evidence that the universe is flat and infinite.

[maxmaximus 10]

Here's a thought: maybe non-existence - or its potential - inadvertently gives rise to emptiness and unstable voids. If that was the case, then we really would be getting something from nothing.

 

 

Pop! there goes another fuse... time to stop thinking.

 

But if the universe popped into existence from an unstable void why did it wait so long to do it, the void must have existed for an infinite time before it became unstable, unless at some point in the future the universe will revert to its unstable state and the process starts again.