Jeromejnr:


That is exactly what it is from their actions.

FOLYKAZE:


what about religion without a supreme being o?

Meanwhile, you affirmed that atheism is not but noises of those who cant justify a religion belief.

Anti-theism is wht you are displaying not atheism.

Anti christianity is not atheism.

Get that into your skull

johnydon22 post=39015185]

You see? all this should be directed to you because you are the one that places the universe under the confines of a finite value..

You have not grasped what is there to grasp about the universe yet in your naive mind asserts it to be finite which is exactly as imperfect.

Still running around making assertions that keeps murdering your own postulations..

This is just like saying: For there to be water they must be another liquid source. .

Actually the formation of water is when hydrogen reacts with oxygen. . . So there musn't be a liquid source to get water.

Now going by this your argument only intelligence can come out intelligent.

- Then God (intelligent entity) must have come out of another intelligent entity which in turn must also require another intelligent entity.

You see assumption of this straight line of causality does not answer the question rather it postpones it..

There is no way you can pull this off for it to work for you. . .

Science simply means study of nature of which the ancient know as Natural philosophy..

So in your little mind you think science is restricted to our age?. . . hahahaha..

the ancient world knew much about science they made observations and postulated explanations but infused it with superstition like.

-Astrology

they had knowledge in
- Botany
-mathematics
- Biology
and many of them.....

You keep on showing you still know nothing of science thinking it is restricted to this age alone... Science is study

Hmm, Primitive. That knew a lot in science before our age
Now this will bring me to a question I will throw to you if interested

johnydon22:


You see the problem i have with discussing science with blank theistic minds. . they will assume because you discuss a scientific theory then you must believe it..

First i took up this discussion was because it was a scientific discussion about Big bang which you represented as NOTHING EXPLODED..

Telling you exactly what a theory said is not same as subscribing to it..

Lastly about the bolded ..

- Big Bang theory is not a johnydon22 theory but a scientific one propounded by Georges Lamitre..

Please that i was telling you what the theory asserts is not the same that i subscribe to it..

making such assumptions will only sell you off to be daft, don't drag me into such assumption again..

Jeromejnr:

Good thing you were smart enough to say it was an hypothesis.
So let me try put something in you head. Big crunch as you call it still proves my point.

Collapse is the opposite of expansion isn't it. I said before Space was expanding before there was collapse in gravitational fields that birthed the big bang. You said Big bang is an expansion, science says big bang was as a result of a collapse. Expansion is opposite to collapse.

Look at the definition of the big crunch:
"In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity or causing a reformation of the universe starting with another big bang."
So I don't know how you say Big Bang was an expansion.

Am so glad you googled it up..

Big crunch proposes that this universe was as a result of a singularity caused by the collapse of another universe just like a blackhole is caused by the collapse of a star core at an infinite point of gravitational force.

You are not even saying the big bang was an explosion anymore. . . lol..

johnydon22 post=39015883]Of course it is a hypothesis or do you think i am you that hopes to establish immutable dogmas?

Hahahaha it doesn't actually you only went on further to continue show casing just how much scientific theories confuse you..



Now i see where your confusion stems from... you think collapse is the opposite of expand.. chai.. this is serious.

Nnam Collapse is not the opposite of Expand..

[color#990000]
Contraction is the opposite of Expansion rather [/color]

Collapse simply means to break down not to contract...... Stop confusing both..

I asserted with the big Bang theory that an infinite point of high density and temperature expanded which is exactly what the big bang theory says..

and you think Collapse means contract, how dafuq were you supposed to understand it then..

Am so glad you googled it up..

Big crunch proposes that this universe was as a result of a singularity caused by the collapse of another universe just like a blackhole is caused by the collapse of a star core at an infinite point of gravitational force.

You are not even saying the big bang was an explosion anymore. . . lol..

hahn:


And who says I'm anti-Christianity? I don't support Islamic brainwashing as much as Christian stupidity. Who cares who it comes from.

If you are going to stand in my face and tell me about your god then you have to be ready to prove it. Simple

Jeromejnr:

So what do you believe in exactly?

Are you confused?
So you do not subscribe to a theory but where pumping it into my head that Big Bang was an expansion? SMH

Since you don't know what you believe in, I need to watch a movie.

This is why Jesus said "Humans without God are like sheeps without shepherds".

Only a sheep needs a shepherd, you just agreed to be one.....

wow no wonder.. i could have guessed tho.

johnydon22:
Boy science is not a dogma that needs to be believed anyway..

Science is not a belief system and so doesn't need to be believed but rather it is study which establishes that it's results can be agreed with or disagreed with in relation to the uncovering of more facts..

Don't bring others down your own mess of belief... Science doesn't need belief..



You see you were just too dumb to conclude that teaching you what a theory really says is same as subscribing to that theory.

I might as well teach you what the enuma elis says, it doesn't mean i believe it.. it simply means i am teaching you what it really says.

I took it upon my self to correct your daft assertion of the big Bang which you represented as nothing exploded and stuporously linking it with atheism by first showing you that

- Big bang didn't say nothing exploded but rather proposed an infinite point of value (singularity)

- Big bang has nothing to do with atheism.

- It wasn't an explosion but an expansion of an infinite point in as a result of reactions of it's values..


Believe in how exactly?

Isn't it better you agree you do not know something when you don't?

i have always told you that attendant behaviour and irrational gap fillers in the face of ignorance is the problem. Everybody must go down your mess of having a belief..


Only a sheep needs a shepherd, you just agreed to be one.....

wow no wonder.. i could have guessed tho.

The Irony.

So you don't believe most of what you've been saying with the agreement that science still has a lot of facts to uncover but yet you use those same theories to attack people that believe in a God

Hypocritical.

So how can you prove theists are deluded using imperfect science? How can one come up with a conclusion that there is no God?

I have just wasted my time debating with someone I thought knew what he believed in.

Jeromejnr:


Thrown to me? I never placed the universe under the confines of a finite value Mr. Man. That is even against the scriptures I believe. I just used your scientific postulations against you who loves to call theories actual facts.

Hahaha now you want to deny your own assertion?
Don't worry i will bring it for you and every other person to see.. You said

I am sure maybe you didn't study physics in
school. Singularity represents an infinity. And nature is regarded as finite.

Now let me see you deny you didn't assert the universe was finite.. i thought lying was supposed to be a sin, now you deny your own post..

Since our minds can't grasp the universe which will be more sane, to believe that an intelligent being created all this or to believe all this came from unintelligence.

There is nothing intelligent about water. Do you even know what intelligence is? Intelligence deals with the ability to make mental decisions.

Now for God to have come from another? Is that why you are an atheist? Don't you think we would be trying to past our limited brains to grasp that? That was why God said of Himself: "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending". Now that will be where the concept of faith comes in.

Now you clearly did not read my post to understand before you jumped to conclusions. Look at it again:
We are both saying the same thing. I said Primitive men knew science even before our present age and not the opposite.

Jeromejnr:


I thought you were intelligent. Collapse in science means to fall into. So when a gravitational field collapses it falls in itself.

Please how is falling an expansion for crying out loud. Let me show you how silly your point is: The universe right now is expanding, so does that mean it is collapsing or breaking down? Chai!

Don't put words in my mouth. Like I say always Big Bang is an explosion as a result of the collapse.

Collapse of nothing huh? you are the one who asserted nothing exploded right there on your Op..

Now am sure i have shown you the Big Bang theory asserts an expansion not explosion of which both your link and wikipedia agrees with me

johnydon22:
Hahaha now you want to deny your own assertion?
Don't worry i will bring it for you and every other person to see.. You said


Now let me see you deny you didn't assert the universe was finite.. i thought lying was supposed to be a sin, now you deny your own post..



Here is where the problem lies assumptions..

Since our minds cannot yet gasp the depth of the universe, it is better we agree that we don't yet grasp it and then try to grasp as much as we can by studying as much as we can.

Instead of assuming up answers without basis of deduction in order to boycott room for learning how it actually happened..

Like i told you, there is no shame in saying we don't know, only when irrational assumptions and attendant behaviours fills the gap left by our ignorance



Exactly the point i showed you that because water is liquid therefore it must need a liquid source.

Intelligence is as a result of perception...


Lmao he said to himself like a psycho " I am the alpha and Omega" This God just like blowing his own trumpet...
This is where the concept of faith comes in which means believe it whether it is true or not... No sir, i don't possess such dishonesty..

Since you assert something intelligence must come from another thing intelligent, now you want to plead on Gods behalf to assert it doesn't need another intelligent being to cause it into existence?

We call that fallacy special pleading and you have murdered your argument with that..



Ok then. . .

Thrown to me? I never placed the universe under the confines of a finite value Mr. Man. That is even against the scriptures I believe. I just used your scientific postulations against you who loves to call theories actual facts.

Jeromejnr:


The Irony.

So you don't believe most of what you've been saying with the agreement that science still has a lot of facts to uncover but yet you use those same theories to attack people that believe in a God
Hypocritical.

So how can you prove theists are deluded using imperfect science? How can one come up with a conclusion that there is no God?

Actually this is easy. .
- First showing off the irrationality of such concepts .. (The concept of Gods is filled up with such irrational ideas.. )

- Second employing the established truthful approximations as reached by scientific study as we know it

- Postulating to the fact that we don't know doesn't mean we should assume up irrational answers rather that means we should strive to learn.

I have just wasted my time debating with someone I thought knew what he believed in.

[b][i]Actually you keep trying to drag me down your mess of having a belief..

Sir it remains your mess, science is study and not an immutable dogma or a belief system..

johnydon22:
You keep confusing yourself..

Fall into is not the opposite of expansion ...


Lmao... You are simply too blank to understand the big bang theory..

The big bang asserts a collapse in a singularity (Which shows reaction) then results into an expansion..

I recommend you stop doing this to yourself..



Collapse of nothing huh? you are the one who asserted nothing exploded right there on your Op..

Now am sure i have shown you the Big Bang theory asserts an expansion not explosion of which both your link and wikipedia agrees with me

Jeromejnr:


The only point I am interested in here was the assertion which you said I made.

Must you try in any way to bring me down?

Firstly it wasn't my assertion but that of physics. here is a link: [email]http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae251.cfm[/email]

Secondly my comment:
I said I believed from scriptures that nature is infinite. But what did my last sentence say? Since we were talking science and not scriptures I decided to use it against you to show speculations and imperfection of your claim.
So you got nothing on me son.

Lmao... all contradicting statements all are of your making.... You are the one that asserted that is is held that nature is finite..

That is why i keep telling you your posts are self refuting...

Jeromejnr:
Dedicated to Chizzled06, Ifeness, Menesheh, and the fellow deluded lots.

johnydon22:


You can read it again and again and then grab. . . Law of gravity states a body must be drawn towards the force of gravitational pull, you are not asking reasons for that..

why not jump out of your balcony and see reasons. . . What was i even thinking discussing science with this one that think science is satan's manipulation..

asking reasons why energy is eternal.. because it is freaking energy !!! .. habaa..

Chizzled06:


Nah.

I believe in this story:

A super powerful (good) guy was bored. So he created little beings for his entertainment.
But this was still too boring. So he created an alter ego to become his antagonist. This evil being became very evil, but the all powerful guy wouldn't make him cease to exist, that's just too boring.

Rather watch the antagonist terrorise his creatures till he gets bored again. Then he'll watch the ones who don't believe he exists burn forever.

But don't forget he knows the future, so these creatures think they're in control, but they really aren't. He already knows the ones he's chosen to burn.

Makes more sense.

PS. Have you considered praying for Lucifer? Maybe if God decides to change him to become good, all the evil will end? Just a thought.

Jeromejnr:

*Facepalm* in an unending loop.
How do I get this in your head?
Space is like a sheet of paper that is stretching out, now somewhere on a part of the sheet there happens to be a collapse which goes against that expansion. But because the sheet of paper (space) is still stretching, it pulls that collapse which results in (well paper does not have gravitational fields so...) which cause the Big Bang not the Big Bang causing the expansion. Big Bang is not an expansion for crying out loud. Is English hard for you?
In fact that would bring us to dark energy.

malvisguy212:
NO my friend, you are the one who need to see reason , seat down and think again. You said energy is eternal , but it has been proven that the universe is NOT eternal. Does this make sense? Energy is eternal but the universe BEGAN to exist, are you
Confused? Me too.

Your explanation was not in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law also declares that the energy available to perform work in the universe progresses from a state of order to a state of greater disorder and decrease in usable energy. Yes energy is not eternal.

Which in every sense proves that energy transcends from one form to another, some in greater quantum value and some in less but never annihilated as the first law assert..

Energy can never be created nor destroyed but changes from one state to another..

Your confusion remains yours...

johnydon22:


Oh not again!!! This is getting very very tiresom..

- First the fabrics of space and time where caused into existence by the Big Bang according to the Big Bang theory.

- The cause of the singularity has pulled out many hypothesis of possible causality like an older universe that collapsed and a singularity is formed afterwards.

You own confusion stems from the fact that you think space and time caused the Big Bang while in actuality the Big bang theory postulates that Space and time actually are a product of the Big Bang..

Pheeeeew...

Jeromejnr:



So If Big Bang was an expansion what was it expanding? The claim of an older universe is an hypothesis.

Look, we could be talking all forms of hypothesis all day and not get anywhere.
Different science notions from different scientists. And yet you guys fell you are more smarter than the "deluded" theists. SMH.

johnydon22:

Now we are getting somewhere..

According to the Big Bang (So you don't confuse me for being a Big Bang theorist) the initial reactions in the singularity caused both space and time into existence as well and so the expansion is that of space itself... which remains the 3dimensional platform of the universe..



Lmao asserting atheists are smarter still is of your own making and none of my business..

- Science established and agrees when a postulation is hypothetical (which means it is unproven in facts yet and can be discarded)

-Hypothesis are not dogmas but rather agreed to be merely speculations unsupported by evidences that is why it is called a hypothesis..

- Wildly accepted scientific theories has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. . It remains your problem if you think so....

Jeromejnr:


So after seeing all this is hypothetical, why the rage against Theism?

Jeromejnr:


Yea and you believe you mutated from an ape. Too much X-men.

Don't even talk here. You ran away from our last discussion.

Chizzled06:


Yes, we both did. Our ancestors parted ways from modern apes two million years ago. There are fossils and DNA evidence, among others to prove it. And No, I've never seen Xmen.

I know it's almost impossible to convince you to discard beliefs you've held since childhood indoctrination by arguing on an internet forum, so that's not exactly what I'm here for.

I'm here to sow seeds of doubt in your baseless beliefs. To hopefully get you thinking rationally and craving for more knowledge, because when you do, there's only one outcome.

I'm also here for the on-the-edge religious reader of this thread. To explain that because almost everybody around you believes something doesn't mean it has to be real.

So no, I can't "run". I'll devote as much time as I can to liberating people from the mental slavery of organised religion.

johnydon22:
[b]

**Face palm** Science deals with systematic deductions of which has established known truthful approximations. . . This is science.

Hypothesis are tags of postulations unsupported by evidence which further proves that science deals with truthful approximations.

-If it worked like theism scientists would have asserted they believe a hypothesis by faith but rather nobody believes a hypothesis.. Hypothesis is an area where research and study is required to either support or refute such postulations.

-e.g the flat earth hypothesis, now has been discarded when it was proven the earth was actually spherical.

Lastly theism encourages the teaching of superstition as truth and irrational assumption as immutable truths which is an insult to human intellect..

-People once thought storms at sea where as a result of the God neptune being pissed off now through scientific deductions we have known that hurricanes are not caused by any angry sick God..

So i refute irrational assumptions and superstitions because it possess a retarding danger to the intellectual development of man..

It is better one accepts he doesn't know and tries to know than for one to just assume up irrational answers in premises where he doesn't have answers .. [/b]

Jeromejnr:


Talk for yourself not for me.

Chizzled06:


Lol. I once shared the same arrogance. I know how difficult it is to shake off the idea that every other living thing was made for your pleasure.

Have you ever heard of Neanderthals? Do you know some living humans aren't genetically 100% homo sapiens? It happens that some of your "destroyed world" 'survived' and interbred with modern humans. Check it out.

johnydon22:


Alright sir. . . Enuma Elis was written by the Gods. . . Noted

Jeromejnr:


Stop giving yourself too much faceplams, your face might turn blue.

Now some people say they have seen God before but you say it's a lie even without your so called systematic deductions to prove it false.

Isn't that hypocritical.

You showed me hypothetical theories that you based your belief on but I could as well show you concrete facts from the scriptures which makes me a believer in God and not based on assumptions.

Your life is based on an assumption, most Theists lives are based on experiences (supernatural).

Therefore you have no right to say Theism or a belief in a God was an assumption without proofs.

I believe in science in fact I love it. If you ask me I would tell you I very well believe in the existence of aliens. But even if that is true, it does not disprove the existence of God in any way.

You can't sit down in your house and say there is no where in the world where they have underwater bridges because you haven't seen it. You have to first prove it before you establish it as a fact/law.

The whole point of my debate with you was to show you can't attack theists with your speculations. You have no proof if they have encountered a God or not.

Jeromejnr:

Stop giving yourself too much faceplams, your face might turn blue.

Now some people say they have seen God before but you say it's a lie even without your so called systematic deductions to prove it false.
Isn't that hypocritical.

You showed me hypothetical theories that you based your belief on but I could as well show you concrete facts from the scriptures which makes me a believer in God and not based on assumptions.

Your life is based on an assumption, most Theists lives are based on experiences (supernatural).

Therefore you have no right to say Theism or a belief in a God was an assumption without proofs.

I believe in science in fact I love it. If you ask me I would tell you I very well believe in the existence of aliens. But even if that is true, it does not disprove the existence of God in any way.

You can't sit down in your house and say there is no where in the world where they have underwater bridges because you haven't seen it. You have to first prove it before you establish it as a fact/law.

Actually atheistic stance is not like that..... Rather disbelief in irrational assumptions is a very valid position.

I can tell you right now i have a pink flying unicorn here with me, now give me proof that i don't..

The onus remains on the claimant to produce proof not the one who doubts the claim..

The whole point of my debate with you was to show you can't attack theists with your speculations. You have no proof if they have encountered a God or not.

Such a bad job you have done at that... Try harder next time ..