Logicboy03: F00028 is a real cowardly tool!


The ignorant muslim posted this thinking it made sense. When he saw that the arguments were beyond his reasoning level, he abandoned the thread.

[size=15pt] wassamatter, Reyginus too much for you ? [/size]

F00028:

[size=15pt] wassamatter, Reyginus too much for you ? [/size]

on the contrary I follow this thread quite closely. sometimes I just observe, I learn stuff better that way...but not from you, obviously.

and one thing I have learnt is you're a perfect example of no. 1

Reyginus: A cause must always be connected to the effect. That is cheap. The difficult thing is:
1. It is not possible to know the cause when you don't know the laws governing the system before it was caused.
2. It is not also possible to decipher the immediate effect of a cause you were not observing. We can never be sure that the expansion of the universe was the immediate effect of the gigantic explosion.
That said. What I think is, we will never know exactly what happened. We will have to accept assumptions based on calculations for now. Science is limited in understanding, never you think it has the answer to everything.
The problem with science is that it tries to do the work of philosophers.

Logicboy03:
...2 reasons why you are an ignorant and cowardly tool.

F00028:
only two?
anyone who reads this thread can easily find 11 reasons why you're a blind following parrot.

enough, now. get back to the relevant stuff.

Uyi Iredia: I was going to castigate the topic but then SOME of the reasons where on-point. For example public opinion sometimes does play on science. Scientists deny this of course since science isn't supposed to be a result of public opinion but the example given was accurate.

wiegraf:
Look at the bold. Without any measurement, observer etc, so long as quarks etc interact, there is uncertainty. You cannot accurately determine the state of the system, or accurately predict (ie 100%) what will happen, even on paper, under any condition. So no, this world is not deterministic, it only looks so.

Everything is made of quarks and what not, everything is both a wave and particle, you don't notice these on the macroscopic level (obviously) but once you get to smaller sizes, strangeness ensues. Weird things like walking through walls happen all the time, unpredictably. Energy is borrowed from and immediately balanced out by

Read it up for yourself though, I'm no pro.

Reyginus: SMH. It seems you've forgotten the arguement we are making here.
You are helping me nail you. Didn't occur to you that since we can't accurately determine the state of a system, when we do so, like we've done with the origin of the universe, it is tantamount to making unfounded claims?

Logicboy03:



Even christians dont agree with the cut and paste list you posted.

Logicboy03:
Notice that Reyginius always made no sense when he made a positive statement eg big bang is an explosion. the big bang is unfounded.

F00028:
so what?!

you see that's the difference between you and I: I ain't here to impress nobody.

Kay 17:

1. We have to assume the our physical laws are consistent with that of the presumed time of big ban.g. For example causality. We presume causality operates at the time of the big ban.g. Why an assumption? Cos we have to start from somewhere.

2. I think an effect points directly at the cause, we should follow the evidence.

3. Science isn't omniscient, yet it makes the most breakthroughs, it questions our authorities and old truths and tradition. It proves the usefulness of knowledge.

Reyginus: Mr logic,I wonder how you even manage to understand. You like to abuse logic. I don't know where you got this idea that cause and effect are the same thing.
You are yet to prove to me that you use logic.

Kay 17:

1. We have to assume the our physical laws are consistent with that of the presumed time of big ban.g. For example causality. We presume causality operates at the time of the big ban.g. Why an assumption? Cos we have to start from somewhere.

2. I think an effect points directly at the cause, we should follow the evidence.

3. Science isn't omniscient, yet it makes the most breakthroughs, it questions our authorities and old truths and tradition. It proves the usefulness of knowledge.

Logicboy03:

How foolish. We know a tiny bit pf the picture. You are arguing that since we dont know the full picture, then that tiny bit is unfounded.


How fallacious. An argument from ignorance.

Logicboy03:





Cause and effect? What are you talking about? Explain

Reyginus: lol. I don't know what you are talking about.
You first have to prove(scientifically) that the tiny bits we know prior to the initial phase of the big bang are true.
Have we done that?

Reyginus: Lololololol. And you call yourself logicboy. Supernova(a gigantic explosion. The cause) and expansion(the effect).

Reyginus: Lololololol. And you call yourself logicboy. Supernova(a gigantic explosion. The cause) and expansion(the effect).

Logicboy03:




What are the things we know prior to the initial phase of the big bang?

Logicboy03:


The big bang wasnt a supernova.

Epic fail


Try again.

Martian:

Lololololol. Just stick to your jewish fairy tales AKA yahweh did it.

Reyginus: Who said it entirely is? What is a supernova? What triggered the expansion of the universe?

Logicboy03:






You wouldnt be asking this foolish question if you bothered to read legitimate sites about the big bang. This is what happens when you use religion to explain science. Stay away from creationist sites

Reyginus: Lol. You wouldn't have allowed such reckless thinking if you know a dime about what we are talking about. This is what happens when people think atheism associates with a superior reasoning.

Logicboy03:


Lol.....coming from someone who has access to the internet claiming that the big bang was caused by a supernova?






retardeen

Reyginus: 1. The moment we even begin to assume, rather than working on proof, whatever claim we are making is unfounded and not certain.
Unfounded in the sense that we don't know whether the laws prior to the big bang were physical or metaphysical.
2. Any evidence we are following will stop making sense the moment we reach the point when the universe was formed. We can never further backward. Our evidence will only be concrete, if we can go back in time to the events prior to initial phase of the big bang.
3. Yes ofcourse it isn't. Their is always a limit to what science can achieve. It's quite unfortunate that scientists will never agree to this, instead they end up making watery claims.

Reyginus: Lololol. The problem is that you think a supernova is a phenomenon. No, it's not. It is a scientific term used to describe a phenomenon-the enormous explosion involving the emission of energy, usually emitted in the form of bright light.
Oya start shouting epic fail. Epic fail!epic fail! epic..!

Kay 17:

1. What we know is troublesome, cos if you know nothing, you'd need a reference point. One has to start somewhere. But assumptions must always have a basis and be simple. For example to test for the speed of light, you have to assume your senses can correctly determine it.

2. Except you have problems with causes and effects, your point doesn't stand, cos you keeping ignoring the causal link btw causes/effects.

3. Science is only held to be more superior.

Logicboy03:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_the_Big_Bang_and_a_supernova_the_same