alfaman2:

I'm still waiting for your comeback on this.

alfaman2: Area Boy, Wiegraf and any other intelligent person out there, please let us continue this discussion because I believe we are learning a lot from it despite our divergent views. Let us not let the ignorant derailers derails us.

MsDarkSkin: As a theist it may surprise many to know that I actually believe in the big bang theory.
the only thing that separates me from the evolutionists is the belief that it was random.

a force much greater than us organized the big bang and created our universe, our planets, our being with perfection and lurv.

ifeness:




Yes i agree the Nazi built vessels similar to the UFO which i have read and seen a lot of pictures. And they built them under the influence of some external intelligence. Like the "ark of convenant" was built in an account written in the bible. Gold was a necessity to build it in order for it to conduct high voltage charges. Just like the Naziis but somthing similar, the ancient people did the same. Question: why did the gods instruct the people not to touch the ark even if it were falling to the ground? Could it be because it was going to electricute the handler to death regardless of the good intent?

ifeness:

The gonverment have acess to hidden technology,i am aware of that. But we need to realize that technology boomed rapidly over a period of 200 years which is really a suspect. Do our gorvenments( especially the western) have a knowledge of other civilization trading technology for other earthly resources like humans ? These are questions we need to ask ourselves.

ifeness:

I think the governments secrets will remain intact if less people think and more people remain religious. Why? Because all religious doctrine do not threaten the hidden secret.

ifeness:

Were humans a product of the extratterestrials? Who know!

ifeness:

Now to answer your 2nd question concerning the devil and spirituality. Life itself is an illusion. Nothing is real but a creation or imagination of ours.

ifeness:

There are infint realities and we all chose whatever reality we fancy. If you think the devil is real,then it will become real in your reality. [b] Time,motion,space are not real,we make them real. [/b]The supernatural is the same,depending on what you want to experience.

ifeness:

The devil ideology is a word used to scare people to do good. It does work but doesnt make the devil real. Remember, life is a dead state,once you die you awake into a more real reality.

wiegraf: @reyg

You seem to misunderstand, we ignore you because you're an incredibly foolish nincompoop, not because we do not have any answers. Well, actually, you were given some answers (by someone unacquainted with your nonsense, of course) but they seem to be completely beyond you.

No, I won't give you any, as they would be totally lost on you and I'm not a charity. Buy books, use google, whatever. Hint, 'god did it' is a lazy cop out, not a valid answer. Look through history, it has never been vindicated, it very likely never will be. Your religious beliefs even demand (blind) "FAITH" from you. Deal with it. Also note there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with saying "I don't know" when it's the truth. In fact, it should be applauded. (Do note, that's not necessarily the case with these issues though.)

If you had stayed out of the way perhaps the rest of us may have gotten to some of your issues. Not that they're anything particularly special, but still...

Really, why recommend this for the front page? If hell bent on getting your 'answers', you could have opened your own thread and recommended it....wait, you do have your own thread dealing with your nonsense, why didn't you keep your retardation there? I hope you recommended that one for the front as well? Or are you not getting enough attention there?

To be fair to you though, those from the front page on this thread are not the usual exemplars of sheer, barely believable, despair inducing stoopidity, both the theists and otherwise, but it could have been much worse.

Kind regards

Reyginus: Lol. Actually I opened a thread, but only two atheists, kay17 and plaetton, out of the numerous intellectuals could rise to the challenge.
Don't pretend you haven't seen my signature.
I now talk to some of your kind like a father to a newborn.

Audukaya: when people have not the ability to think abstractly then they would begin to think that a concep is false. You must not see or touch everything,now we believe that there are waves that links us through tele-com can we see them? are they not functioning? To me an atheist has a question to ask his mental capacity before arguing with prophets. See u guy.

Logicboy03:





This guy is delusional!!!!


Kay17 and Plaetton had pity on you.

Logicboy03:

Sharrap, I expected better from you. As far as this thread is concerned, you are among the ignorant ones.



Seriously disappointed, bro. you're ma pal, but you fall my hand

alfaman2:

Instead of shouting all over this thread like a rabid dog, you might as well use the time to explain to us your own understanding of the big bang.

Logicboy03: Alfaman, i just lost FAITH in you.



Areaboy, gave clearcand simple explanations but you were anonynizing. The big bang is simply the best explanation we have now. The universe is expanding and scientists trace it back to a particular time they couldnt go past using mathemtical models and asssumptions from observing the universe.


To claim that it doesnt make sense is quitefoolish

Logicboy03:


Shouting? Did i use capslock??


I have already explained my stance on the big bang

Logicboy03:

Sharrap, I expected better from you. As far as this thread is concerned, you are among the ignorant ones.



Seriously disappointed, bro. you're ma pal, but you fall my hand

alfaman2:

No, you didn't explain your stance. You stated what scientists said, which they got at using, in your words, mathemtical models and asssumptions.

Anybody that knows mathematics knows that you can prove almost anything with maths. I gave the example of algebra.

The second one is assumption which is as reliable as a grey smoke from a vatican chimney.

Tell us what you think. Use your own brain for once.

Logicboy03:


Wow......just wow.

If a balloon swells up the volume of 40cm² from nothing at a rate of 2cm per second. What was its size at 10 seconds?

The answer is 20cm.


Now, you have retraced the expansion of the balloon to a past time (from its full volume at 20 seconds to a particular time of 10 seconds) using a mathematical model and an assumption that the ballon swells at a uniform rate.


This is a basic modelling of the expansion of the universe.The assumptions are based on observable facts of the universe. And yes, ballons will swell at a uniform rate if air is pumped in at a particular rate.

alfaman2:
You just sound like a religious fanatic who cannot think outside the bible because that would make his world collapse. You just can't think outside the existing "laws of physics" that govern some parts of our world. The bolded is just an extraordinary claim to make. You very well know that they exist if and only if the laws of motion were flawless and constant. We have already shown the flaws in these laws within our own world. Also note that high gravity affects these laws as to make them useless.

alfaman2:
@ the bolded. Yes, perfectly reasonable but completely wrong. It is a reasonable incompetence. It is a theory that makes reasonable sense but is in reality a complete nonsense.

alfaman2:

Yes, I expect them to think outside the laws and consider the possibility that those laws may not apply in such circumstances. I expect them to acknowledge that things in the cosmos may not be as simple as they think.

alfaman2:
I very much understand Occam's razor but am more inclined to the school of thought of Walter Chatton which considers more possibilities where existing theories do not provide adequate answers.

alfaman2:
We can discuss multiverse in another thread if you want. Let us keep this on the Big Bang. But just note that even if the big bang were to be correct, the only possible conclusion (apart from the "we are expanding into nothingness" nonsense) is that we are in a multiverse. Even if we are the only universe inside it, it is still a multiverse. A single planet solar system is still a solar system. Mind you, multiverse does not necessariry mean there was a big bang. If you want to continue this multiverse one, please open a fresh thread.

alfaman2:
Humans.

alfaman2:
And I don't have a poor grasp of the method. I just disagree with it.

Reyginus: Lol. Actually I opened a thread, but only two atheists, kay17 and plaetton, out of the numerous intellectuals could rise to the challenge.
Don't pretend you haven't seen my signature.
I now talk to some of your kind like a father to a newborn.

alfaman2:

Maybe it was a mistake to ask you to use your own brain because your previous incivility is way better than this rubbish attempt at looking intelligent.

We are talking of the theory of the big bang and you are talking about blowing up a balloon.

No wonder the religious folks here label you the head of atheists in mockery of atheism. Don't take pride in that title because atheists here don't acknowledge you as a leader or worse, a spokesperson. From thread to thread, you show your ignorance. I have already once handed you a great humiliation when you started showing your abject ignorance on the subject of cloning. https://www.nairaland.com/954879/human-clones-souls

You are not obliged to comment on every thread. If you don't know the subject, shut up, read and learn.

alfaman2:

Maybe it was a mistake to ask you to use your own brain because your previous incivility is way better than this rubbish attempt at looking intelligent.

We are talking of the theory of the big bang and you are talking about blowing up a balloon.

No wonder the religious folks here label you the head of atheists in mockery of atheism. Don't take pride in that title because atheists here don't acknowledge you as a leader or worse, a spokesperson. From thread to thread, you show your ignorance. I have already once handed you a great humiliation when you started showing your abject ignorance on the subject of cloning. https://www.nairaland.com/954879/human-clones-souls

You are not obliged to comment on every thread. If you don't know the subject, shut up, read and learn.

wiegraf:

This is all repetiton bordering on LLLAALALALAA

Because, like i've already mentioned, there's no good reason to throw out existing laws of physics. And these 'dark' effects are real, observed in various scenarios.

Until you provide good reasons to toss out the laws, like einstein did when he proposed a framework which voided the concept of the aether, a framework which stood up to scrutiny, in which he explained quite a lot of hitherto observed but unexplained phenomena, made predictions that were confirmed, etc, do not expect whatever theory you're pushing to be aaccepted by the mainstream. Simple. This is very reasonable.

No one's stopping you from exploring other options, in fact, you'll get all the support that can be mustered for your cause, support which will depend on how sound your claims are. Your claims will be peer-reviewed, collaborators will assist, etc. But having the scientific community toss out established, verified laws virtually on whims? Really?

wiegraf: An excellent example would be string theory, regardless of how fancy or beautiful it may be, it won't be accepted as mainstream until it passes a group of tests. It will not be accepted on more or else.....faith. Which is, frankly, what you, not me, are suggesting we do by disregarding established, confirmed physical laws before we've thoroughly explored them. Really, we should just make $hit up?

wiegraf: Laws of motion waver in extreme conditions, eg on the quantum scale, high densities/temperatures, etc. But obviously, they are still physical laws of this universe, not another, just under certain conditions. And we've not even studied these extreme conditions properly, they might not be as unintuitive as initially thought. They will no doubt aid with our general understanding of the universe (eg the forces being the same at very high temps would help explain some of brain dead reyg's queries). Anyways, all things being equal we should stick to the standard laws, we should at least exhaust that option thoroughly before putting our full weight on others or assuming extreme conditions.

And, for the n'th time, other options are being explored.

wiegraf: No, it cannot be both reasonable and incompetent, as far as their actions are concerned. This is simple logic, I don't think I could put it any simpler.

Your issue is with the scientific method therefore the whole scenario should be incompetent to you, not this bit then that bit.

wiegraf: You will have to explain what this superior(?) system is

wiegraf: This is wrong, if what is out there is true 'nothing' then there is no multiverse, just this one. Can't see why using the prefix 'multi' in that situation is justified.

wiegraf: You well know most humans think we popped out of nowhere ready made say 6000 years ago. So, who are 'we'?

wiegraf: Why? This is the main point of contention probably

Logicboy03:


Btw, there is nothing humiliating about that. You said and showed that I was wrong and I accepted it. I love being wrong and that is how I learn. For you to even go as far back as then to bring up such trivial stuff....gaddem...


Just look at your own foolishness on this thread. You can accept that you are wrong.


I have stated more than once that I have had failed threads. I am not perfect.

alfaman2:

I can't accept that I am wrong because unlike you, I don't jump into threads I know nothing about and start showcasing my ignorance.
I explain my stance with arguments and it is up to others (you) to prove me wrong, if they (you) can.

Blown up balloons. Don't make me laugh.

I unearthed that thread just incase you don't know who you are dealing with and my latest moniker led you astray. It was also a good way of buttressing my point that you are an ignoramus.

alfaman2:

Of course there are no good reasons to throw away existing laws of physics except when it doesn't work, which is like, ehm, ALL THE TIME! But we won't throw them away. We will rather add a variable called "dark energy" to it in order to balance the equation. Ah! yes, we don't know what this dark energy we are adding is but it is either we add it or we throw away our laws. Remeber we have invested time (thousands of years) and money (trillions of any currency) on these laws so think carefully before deciding which one you chose.

alfaman2:
Back to your challenge. I have provided my reasons why I doubt the bib bang theory. I am not providing an alternative. I am just like an atheist saying, your proof of god is not sufficient for me to believe for so so reasons and the religious fanatics claiming that their proof has passed all religious test, and unless the atheist would provide a proof of another deity (or something else), he has to accept their views.

alfaman2:
Can you hear how you sound? Disbelieving a theory is faith?
Stop saying thing I didn't say. I never proposed an alternative to big bang. All I'm saying is that the existing proofs are not good enough.

wiegraf:
Which is, frankly, what you, not me, are suggesting we do by disregarding established, confirmed physical laws before we've thoroughly explored them.

alfaman2:
No. Laws of motion become useless in extreme conditions. They are set aside and other laws are substituted. But I notice that you do agree with me that they don't work under certain conditions that have not been studied properly.

alfaman2:
You are saying that we should stick to the standard laws even when the big bang theorist in attempting to explain their theory, disregarded those laws.

alfaman2:
I will drop this one as I see your point. But that doesn't invalidate what I said. It may still be reasonable and logical but it was wrong.

alfaman2:
You are the one that asked about Occams razor. I am surprised that you should know about occam's razor but not know of its main chief opposer. Do your research.

alfaman2:
If truly the universe is made up of a unique space and matter inside a nothingness, then the potentiality of other verses exist, which automatically puts us in a multiverse. Logical and reasonable.

alfaman2:
Those that now think we popped out of an explosion 13.7 billion years ago.

alfaman2:
At last you are getting it.

wiegraf:
On a somewhat related note, this seems to be related to your issues with the scientific method. My response on that thread stillstands

wiegraf: You have now dived head first into whargarbl senselesness.

wiegraf: It does not work all the time? When you were fumbling about earlier did you or did you not state that in some use cases it is accurate?

wiegraf: No, you are providing an alternative. Not necessarily to the bb but definitely to the scientific method. Which you claim, directly or not, is unreasonable.

wiegraf: Brah, again, i never said you proposed an alternative theory, I said you're insisting we toss out the scientific method and adopt whatever it is you're pushing. That we abandon known physical laws just because, even though that would be going against the scientific method. A situation similar to you proposing we adopt another theory just because.

wiegraf: In case you're having problems understanding that, read that bit again



You just want to argue blindly with this



What are you on about? What laws do they disregard?

wiegraf: It makes it senseless, and it strikes at the core of the issue. Even if bb is ultimately proven wrong and you're vindicated with that (note, I've not even been arguing with you over this) you have also accused the scientific community of being blatantly irresponsible. This is clearly, and very much so, wrong, as they are largely just following the scientific method. They have good reason for doing what they do, do you now understand?

You can say the bb doesn't make enough sense, no issues. But all the rhetoric about it being blatantly wrong, scientists (or whoever 'we' are) being irresponsible, etc, are clearly silly. Again, do you now understand?

Frankly, it is creating issues where there are non, unless you have a problem with the scientific method, see?

wiegraf: che. I didn't learn about occam's razor in secondary school sciences or something similar, it is not common knowledge. I am not a scientist sef, nor would most of the people on a forum labelled 'religion' be. I know of it because of simple curiosity. And occam's razor is just part of what is being examined, the whole scientific method is being put under the radar, so i am not even asking as with regards to occam's razor. You mentioned whatever you did as an alternative, superior(?) (and note the question mark, which was in the post you quoted as well, indicating you clarify) system without even explaining, in any form whatsoever how (simple links might even suffice), and expect us to just accept that?

wiegraf: This is downright childish, and I should know, I'm an expert on childishness

wiegraf: You used the word yourself, 'unique'.

You would have to make various assumptions, eg that this event is not a one off, or that the unique event while not being so unique does not take place strictly sequentially, ie, only once at a time, etc, to support your assertion that this event can potentially occur elsewhere at anytime.

wiegraf: No, they still think we popped out ready made 6000 years ago, and again, you well know that. Who are 'we' please?

wiegraf: No, at last you're getting it. I mentioned this a long time ago




Now, do tell pls, tell us this alternative and preferably dispense with the childishness if you can.

Edits, nothing major

alfaman2:

No. It is not senseless if you actually take time to comprehend it but I guess with you everything has to be explained in minute details.

alfaman2:
I think we have handled this before but if you want to keep going back to it, I will just keep repeating what I said which is that being accurate in some cases does not mean being accurate in all cases.

alfaman2:
No, once again. I am not providing an alternative. I am only disputing the existing theory.

alfaman2:
I am insisting you test and question the theories presented to you.

alfaman2:
I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean here by blind argument.

alfaman2:
Anyway, about the disregarded motion law, I will put it as a question to Area Boy in my next post as he said he could clarify my worries. You are also free to answer it. Just wait.

alfaman2:
Yes, I do have a problem with the method. They have a pick and chose method where they apply laws to validate their theories and disregard (or add new viariables to) these same laws when it contradicts them. That makes them irresponsible.

alfaman2:
Firstly, I never said it was superior.

alfaman2:
It is a criticism of occams razor by Walter Chatton. It is called the Chatton Principle and goes like this: Whenever an affirmative proposition is apt to be verified for actually existing things, if two things, howsoever they are present according to arrangement and duration, cannot suffice for the verification of the proposition while another thing is lacking, then one must posit that other thing.

And here is a good link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/walter-chatton/#AntRaz

alfaman2:
LOL. Maybe you should talk to Logicboy because I'm getting really tired of his shenanigans and I am no expert like you.

alfaman2:
Stop being pedantic. It's a bit childish.

alfaman2:
"We" are humans that believe that we popped out of an explosion 13.7 billion years ago.

alfaman2:
Na wa for you o! Which alternative again. I don't know how this world started and unlike the big bangers and the godly, I am not going to invent something to sound relevant.