XxSabrinaxX:

[img]https://media1./images/270b2ef1070569dc44a100a9c18cdf63/tenor.gif[/img]
SMHLOL. Is you arse bleeding yet from riding shadeyinka's rod ever so ferociously ? Pray, clown, what have you contributed to this thread thus far other than fellate a fellow man making inane assertions on an internet forum when he could be winning a Nobel Prize? At the end of the day, the bitter truth is you are the one getting twisted in and out by utter chicken scratch/trash; arguments that actually hold no weight to actual rational persons.


Au contraire, my good man! First, i admit "Who created god" is a dumb question.
According to the evidence of scientific laws, masses and masses of evidence, these descriptions of reality always apply, and one of the most fundamental of them says that mass/energy cannot be created. Accordingly, proposals from cosmologists, whose field of scientific study covers this question, do not propose that the universe was ever created. The proposal of the initial singularity says that a massive gravitational singularity already existed at the time of the Big Bang. This is often coupled with the proposal that the mass and space-time of the universe has always existed (for all time), it had no beginning. This proposal is perfectly consistent with all of the available indirect evidence. It would mean that "all time" is not eternity, it is only the 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. So, in summary, the proposal is that the universe was initially a massive gravitational singularity 13.8 billion years ago, but then it expanded.

Good lord! Why don't you go and get a degree in Physics prior to talking such nonsense?

The cosmos may be a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged. Where does the cosmos come from?

jamesid29:
After going through the thread, I would like to suggest to Mr shadeyinka, if you can, to take the high road and let the conversation die a natural death. I may not agree with you on some of the statements you have made but any honest person reading this thread would agree that the people you're engaging with really do not understand the subject matter well enough to make and follow through with meaningful counter claims. All we can see is half baked counter claims sprinkled with mockery,name calling and assertions of superior intellect.

It's mind boggling to have a statement like this

In the same post, a statement like this is made:


I could be wrong but I personally don't see any reason to continue the conversation.

TheArranger:

I could also be wrong or maybe i'm off my hinges but i don't understanding your point or the contradiction you're trying to highlight. Please clarify. Thank you.

jamesid29:
After going through the thread, I would like to suggest to Mr shadeyinka, if you can, to take the high road and let the conversation die a natural death. I may not agree with you on some of the statements you have made but any honest person reading this thread would agree that the people you're engaging with really do not understand the subject matter well enough to make and follow through with meaningful counter claims. All we can see is half baked counter claims sprinkled with mockery,name calling and assertions of superior intellect.

It's mind boggling to have a statement like this

In the same post, a statement like this is made:


I could be wrong but I personally don't see any reason to continue the conversation.

XxSabrinaxX:

Look. If there is no deity that created the universe, it does not mean there was an infinite regress. I can imagine other possibilites, natural, ultimate causation, or, a brute fact ultimate causation. Infinite regress is not necessarily impossible. You said it yourself here,

I agree! I have no idea. Neither do you. Insisting that it must be a god is an assumption that explains nothing. Rather it adds more mystery to the issue.


LOVED the comment @red (as if you didn't know already ). If your explanation beyond what can be shown to exist is "I don't know", there's no infinite regression to be worried about. If you need to make up an explanation for why something is the way it is, you've boxed yourself into a corner where your "explanation" isn't exempt from the nonsense justification that you used as an excuse to make sh*t up about observable facets of reality.

How many more ways can I possibly repeat the same thing again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again..................... ?



LOL. You are responding to the request you evidence one of your endless unevidenced claims, by you offering yet another unevidenced claim!

[img]https://media1./images/fb147d17dbe13bf3b0e6167682f5dbda/tenor.gif[/img]
Wow. What a genius!

How can we know god is transcendent of our laws if we don't know what god is or what the laws are outside this ball of mass we're in? Wazoldis presuppositional tripe for, ehn?

Shadeyinka, you don't get to assert creation
You don't get to assert initiation
You don't get to assert source
You surely don't get to assert whatever initiated

You have not ruled out any entirely natural processes in any way. Please learn to prove your assertions. You cannot possibly know what is natural or unnatural beyond Planck Time without a crystal ball. I have made no assertions thus I am absolved of any burden of proof. All we know is that the universe is expanding and that is validated by nearly all known experiments. Nevertheless; this idea too, is being challenged.

"According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all."
We do not know for certain! You do not get to make inane assertions!
http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

"Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena - something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space".
Eric J. Lerner et al. UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local universe to z ~ 5. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, published online May 02, 2014; doi: 10.1142/­S0218271814500588

Educate yourself.



Not emotional. Just bored, sick and tired of the presupposition nonsense you keep pushing ad nauseum

XxSabrinaxX:

I'm starting to get the feeling you either don't understand what I am saying or you just rush over everything I say just to get the last word. I think its pretty obvious at this point that any further logical discussion will not be possible. Just a few parting points to (hopefully) put things in the proper perspective,

1> You do not get to claim "creation". This is "begging the question". "A creation needs a creator" is completely fallacious assertion. Instead one might simply ask, "How did the universe get here or was it always here?"

XxSabrinaxX:

2> Atheists do not need an alternative to magic and superstition. It is enough to simply NOT believe the claims are supported with facts and evidence. Souls, miracles, prophecies, prayer, spirits, blessings, mystical experiences and the rest mean absolutely nothing until facts and evidences for these things are presented. When facts and evidence are presented, then they will not be mystical any longer. Wow! Its just so simple

XxSabrinaxX:

3> There are no valid arguments from the sciences: Physics, Psychology, Sociology, Cosmology, Biology, Chemistry, Earth science, Archaeology, Anthropology, Mathematics, Logic, Astronomy, Statistics, or any other sciences that asserts proof of the existence of one particular god out of the millions of gods postulated throughout human existence. None! (You can do yourself a favor by stopping the pretence and avoid looking completely stupid by not using examples from the sciences).

XxSabrinaxX:


Again, you don't get to just blindly assert crap! Open your eyes and realize you are in darkness just like everyone else. Stop pretending that monsters, ghosts, gods etc exist. It makes you look like an idiot. Sincerely.

It is my prayer for you, that on a very good day, you'll look back at this thread and read it from beginning to end, realizing how truly hilarious, semantic, fallacious, juvenile and ridiculous your arguments were. Till then, farewell! I cannot afford to keep beating a dead horse. PS: For the love of your imaginary god, put a leash on your little doggy blabbermouth and rein him in. I really don't have to engage simpletons on this thread, do I?

Vic2Ree:

And now the scientist has departed and the true religious dogmatist rears his head. LoL!. You just mad you can't prove ur Jehovah even with all ur physics. Olodo oponu. LMFAO!


Who's sounding mad now? . I don't need to debate you after what you've been through already in this thread. Dat na double wahala 4 dead bodi . Ogbeni go and claim your Nobel. If u like insult me 4rm morning till night, you still can't prove your Jehovah

LordReed:


And did you check any of the references? SMH. Check the references and quote even one that says the universe is an isolated system.

jamesid29:
After going through the thread, I would like to suggest to Mr shadeyinka, if you can, to take the high road and let the conversation die a natural death. I may not agree with you on some of the statements you have made but any honest person reading this thread would agree that the people you're engaging with really do not understand the subject matter well enough to make and follow through with meaningful counter claims. All we can see is half baked counter claims sprinkled with mockery,name calling and assertions of superior intellect.

It's mind boggling to have a statement like this

In the same post, a statement like this is made:


I could be wrong but I personally don't see any reason to continue the conversation.

shadeyinka:

I leave that to you!
It's easy to find a rebuttal isn't to?

But you don't need to. See you another time

LordReed:


LMFAO! You have no dignity. You could have just gracefully admitted that you goofed but you had to drag yourself through the mud didn't you. Bwahahahaha!

jamesid29:
After going through the thread, I would like to suggest to Mr shadeyinka, if you can, to take the high road and let the conversation die a natural death. I may not agree with you on some of the statements you have made but any honest person reading this thread would agree that the people you're engaging with really do not understand the subject matter well enough to make and follow through with meaningful counter claims. All we can see is half baked counter claims sprinkled with mockery,name calling and assertions of superior intellect.

It's mind boggling to have a statement like this

In the same post, a statement like this is made:


I could be wrong but I personally don't see any reason to continue the conversation.

shadeyinka:

.

ElidaxZiel:
Honestly shadeyinka , you should not have disturb yourself by arguing with these ingrates,. This is a saying that says don't argue with a fool because you will both become a fool

Let them believe if they want, but I'm sure the atheist wannabe guys , will have sense when they encounter problem which science cannot handle

So just leave them, you have done your best,

shadeyinka:

Thanks so much. I've actually terminated my discuss with them on this topic.

They feign superior intellect with sound Scientific backing: I just wanted to show how empty they really are.

Shalom!

shadeyinka:

If Theists have taken your kind of position, I think Atheists would have cried fowl

asserting the "no one knows" position of agnostics and probably want everyone to take the same stance with you

I honestly believe that a true Agnostic need not take sides either with either the Theists nor the Atheists; for both the Atheists and the Theists take a gnostic position

Unfortunately, agnostics come here feigning atheism and use science as a bases (basis............write out 100 times) to knock down Theism

It is logically possible to find the truth if one desires

"I don't know" seems to be a path of easy escape for anyone who refuse to exercise the use of simple logics logic

Let's pick some issues between Atheists and Theists

1. Theists: God created the universe
Atheists: The universe created itself

2. Theists: The universe has a beginning
Atheists: The universe always existed

6. Theists: The DNA is a kind of computer code. It requires an Intelligent Programmer.
Atheists: The program of the DNA came about by pure statistical accident of chemical reactions

[s]Theists: Given infinite number of arrangements of the alphanumeric characters, can a computer code be created?
Atheists: [/s]

9. Theists: Consciousness/Awareness requires the personality to be able to feel both discomfort and pleasure and volition. Chemicals cannot cause this

A Design needs a designer until it can be shown that the converse is possible. In a design, we see interrelated systems that can't exist without the other e.g. key and padlock, house and roof

You don't need to believe in anything other than, "there is a Prime Mover/Source of everything"

There are many gods one creator

Gods are in higher dimensions

An agnostic should be a seeker of truth and must refrain from taking gnostic positions

Blabbermouth:

Lemme fire a shot,
Before the 13.8 billion years (whatsoever), was the gravitational singleton still present?
PS: "I don't know" is allowed.

jamesid29:

Oh sorry, my bad.
The point I was trying to make was; if you follow the conversations and get to post I took the highlights from, you'd see d poster fumbled with their understanding of what the word cosmos means( at least in the context it was been used), but just read down a couple of lines in the same post and the same poster is quick to tell someone else to shut up and go learn physics. Was just trying to butress the point of how the counter claims were more of mockery and name calling than any other thing.

XxSabrinaxX:

Good day, sir! . What didn't you understand about my post? Did you happen to see the words "may be" in it?

There is nothing to be confused about, y'hear? The cosmos MAY BE a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged!

"The universe is an open or closed system in the thermodynamics sense of the terms. The universe is open if it is affected by something outside of it. (Cosmos) If there is no outside of it then obviously it is a closed system. I think most people define "universe" in terms that require it to be a closed system, though a few people (i.e. brane-world string theorists) use the term somewhat differently."
Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-an-open-or-a-closed-system.255948/

Read VERY carefully. Closed systems cannot exchange matter with the surroundings, but can exchange energy. Isolated systems can exchange neither matter nor energy with their surroundings, and as such are only theoretical and do not exist in reality (except, possibly, the entire universe).

You cannot just know the things you profess to know. You cannot know anything about the cosmos. You cannot yet know if our universe is an open or closed system. The final results are not yet in. I cited this with articles. It is not my fault that NOBODY is opting to read them. There is only one person on this thread making inane assertions and I know who that person is.........

XxSabrinaxX:
Well there you go, Shadeyinka! Now I know your first big problem and why this argument has been total bunkum. Let's go through your post, shall we? (By the way, apologies for all the late responses. I'm kind of pursuing something big IRL so please pray for me )

Chicken, capon! What a goose!
Don't mind me, i'm just crying fowl laugh

@red
fowl= any bird
foul= bad, under-handed or awful
Free vocabulary lesson, you're welcome, but you have to admit I was right to mock you

Anyways, on a more serious note, when atheists state their single viewpoint on this site, most theists do more than cry foul! They insult, insinuate, preach and condemn. They have been known to wilfully distort the truth and they declare atheists to be "dishonest" without reasonable explanation. You remain lower than a dog turd in my eyes until your apology is made.

XxSabrinaxX:

Shadeyinka, I frequently describe myself as an agnostic atheist. This is because I both do not believe the assertion that gods exist AND I admit I have no way to know if they do or not. Pay attention to my use of the words believe and know! They are different things! I, along with many others, define a/theism as a belief or lack of belief in god(s). Additionally, a/gnosticism is about knowledge i.e knowing about the existence or non-existence of god(s). For example, a christian who follows Pascal's wager, (A doubting Thomas) is in fact an Agnostic Christian!

Thus, are you asserting that, despite the definitions I have provided above, I cannot be both atheist and agnostic, hmm?


1> You have committed a No True Scotsman fallacy (look it up).
2> There is no such thing as "a fake agnostic". One is either agnostic about X, Y or Z, or one is not. The word has a very simple meaning: It comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which simply means "knowledge" and "a" which means "without". It has nothing to do with belief and is not restricted to religious knowledge. E.g. I am agnostic about alien visitation I.E I don't know.
3> A person may both be atheist AND agnostic. I demonstrated this above. I do not believe in god(s) BUT I do not claim to KNOW there is/are no god(s).
4> You have continuously proven yourself to be an ignoramus, seeming to be lacking even the ability to use a dictionary.
5> Quad Erat Demonstradum!

XxSabrinaxX:

This is another mistaken generalisation. As far as I have witnessed for close to one year on this forum, most atheists don't use science to knock down theism if only because most professed theists do not understand how the scientific method works and seem impervious to any explanation. Thus, some atheists use history, some prefer philosophy and so on. Mine mostly depends on who I'm engaging in argument.


It may be. We don't know. All we can seem to assert is that the truth may be out there. That's why we keep looking. (Well, some of us. Others are crouched on their knees in dark candle lit rooms, believing in and practicing magic rituals)


You could not be more wrong. One of the people on this site professing to know things that they cannot possibly know is YOU! "I don't know" is the path to exploration, inquiry, mystery and eventually, DISCOVERY. Pretending you know an answer is just delusion. Supporting your delusional answer with more delusion only succeeds in proving you are deluded.

Get some basic integrity!

XxSabrinaxX:

Sure, Let's do that.


OK. FIRST OF ALL, you've committed a false dichotomy fallacy! We have many more options than that:
A> God created the universe
B> The universe created itself
C> The universe always existed
D> The Big Bang was just one of many Big Bangs
E> A steady state universe
F> Eternal Inflation Level II Universe
G> Oscillating universe
H> A computer simulation universe
I> A holographic universe
J> A multi-dimensional universe
Bla Bla Bla...

SECOND OF ALL, the way this simplistic argument is posed reveals an inherent weakness in the theist view, besides not understanding atheism.

Theist thought is so imbued by the idea of a god figure that even when expressing their version of the atheist view, they can not help but replace their god with another power image, in this case: The Universe.

I do not recall ever hearing an atheist state the "univese created itself" as an axiom. I personally only use that clause to counter theists' special pleading, argumentum ad ignorantiam riddled "God created himself" argument. The universe is not an entity, a personality, or replacement for a god. It is a material place, subject to elemental forces of nature, apparently immeasurable in dimension and in Newtonian time. It currently defies total and complete understanding by the practice of science, and especially religion, but as science has only been free to investigate reality for a mere four hundred years at best, it has revealed a great deal in a relatively short time just how and what those elemental forces have produced. Much is yet to be gleaned but this does not negate the value of what has so far been discovered.

Even Lemaitre, the catholic priest who mathematically created the original concept of the Big Bang pointedly warned the Vatican not to publicly use his theory as proof of biblical creation. He understood one was a mathematical scientific theory and the other to be a belief!


You have now committed the strawman fallacy (are you keeping score?)! You can not know either assertion. I think science currently leans towards the universe having an origin but that says nothing about the cosmos. Universe is local time and local creation. From what or where no one can actually say!

Your numbers 3, 4, 5 have thus, all been addressed. Conclusion: They are bunkum/garbage.

XxSabrinaxX:

It is about time you got it into your thick head that atheists hold no dogmatic opinion on DNA. You might want to talk to a biologist. What can easily be discovered is this (any biological website can and WILL tell you the same): DNA is a chemical reaction
just like every other chemical reaction known to mankind

"The core argument of Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer."
https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code

This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premise: that DNA is a code, that computer instruction is a code, and that the term "code" is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.

In short, you are committing an equivocation fallacy: the word "code" is used one way for systems like computer programming or the Morris code, an d in a completely different way for biology. For this reason, your number 7 is completely INVALID.

I have explained enough and shown (via links) enough to illustrate why this DNA drivel is DOA (Dead On Arrival) and is one of the most debunked and/or derided theist arguments. But knowing you, you'll continue to ask that inane question till the end of time because you are invulnerable to reason.


Have you never seen people turn aggressive under the influence of alchol or drugs? Altering their emotions and making them take decisions without their full control?

When my brother drinks, he becomes more intelligent, good looking, and great at singing, but some people turn nasty. A drunk guy once punched my bro in the mouth in the middle of a beautiful rendition of "Africa" by Toto at a karaoke bar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTQbiNvZqaY

Looking back, I think the chemicals affected his consciousness and his ability to enjoy great music.


"A DeSiGn NeEdS a dEsIgNeR" and things that occur naturally do not. What's your point? You are also makingthe Begging the Question fallacy (still keeping scores, huh?). Design does not need a designer, it may need an observer. Designs occur in chaotic systems but if no one is there to notice, who will call it a design?


I don't need to believe in that either. Why in the world would I believe in such nonsense without evidence?


How in the f*ck would you know this?


Again, how in the f*ck would you know this?


You mean positions like:
1> A design needs a designer?
2> You need to believe there is a prime mover (A source for everything?)
3> There are many gods but only one creator?
4> Science has three dimensions but gods live in higher dimensions?

LOL. Oh kerist... the whole kit and caboodle of unfounded claims, faulty logic and unevidenced assertions by shadeyinka! This is the most idiotic drivel I have yet run accross on this site. My IQ dropped three points by just sitting here next to it.

As I said earlier,.... what a goose! Actually my uttering of "capon", a fat, pompous neutered cockerel is a much better picture of this entire posting. Fowl play indeed!

Cc. LordReed, Martinez39, Vic2Ree, budaatum, CAPSLOCKED

XxSabrinaxX:

Good day, sir! . What didn't you understand about my post? Did you happen to see the words "may be" in it?

There is nothing to be confused about, y'hear? The cosmos MAY BE a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged!

"The universe is an open or closed system in the thermodynamics sense of the terms. The universe is open if it is affected by something outside of it. (Cosmos) If there is no outside of it then obviously it is a closed system. I think most people define "universe" in terms that require it to be a closed system, though a few people (i.e. brane-world string theorists) use the term somewhat differently."
Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-an-open-or-a-closed-system.255948/

Read VERY carefully. Closed systems cannot exchange matter with the surroundings, but can exchange energy. Isolated systems can exchange neither matter nor energy with their surroundings, and as such are only theoretical and do not exist in reality (except, possibly, the entire universe).

You cannot just know the things you profess to know. You cannot know anything about the cosmos. You cannot yet know if our universe is an open or closed system. The final results are not yet in. I cited this with articles. It is not my fault that NOBODY is opting to read them. There is only one person on this thread making inane assertions and I know who that person is.........

TheArranger:
@SHADEYINKA
Just a little food for thought here.

* I am NOT a scientist
* I am NOT a physicist
* I am NOT an astrophysicist
* I am NOT a cosmologist
* I am NOT a mathematician
* I am NOT a biologist
* I am NOT a chemist
* I am NOT a geologist
* I am NOT a historian
* I am NOT a psychologist
* I am NOT a sociologist

What I am is a young secondary school English teacher who lives a comfortable and happy life with my amazing wife. And I also happen to be an atheist after finally being able to escape the bonds of my religious indoctrination within the last couple of years.

Now speaking of my atheism, here is something that may interest you a bit. While i do have some amount of interest in those fields of study listed above, i am not anywhere near an expert in any of them in any way, shape or form. For the most part, i have only a basic knowledge and a general understanding of many of those subjects, as they appeal to the "nerdy side" of my limited intellect. More importantly, however, (pay attention, because this is the important part) my being an atheist is independent of any of those fields of study. About the only thing any of those disciplines do is to help me reinforce the reasons i do not believe in your god or any other gods.

So that being said, i think it is great if you happen to have advanced studies or a degree in one or more of those fields. Fantastic. Good for you. I happen to enjoy learning about and discussing various things in some of those areas myself. What i find hilarious, however, is how you and other such theists attack us atheists, spouting all types of "advanced" science/physics/cosmology and such, and then try to claim some sort of victory for your god when most of us are unable to counter your psychobabble. It truly is amusing on many levels.

1. As i've already stated, my being an atheist is NOT dependent on science.
2. If you are trying to use science to convince me and others that your god is real, you have lost before you even started.
3. I have lost count of how many times i've seen other theists on this same forum attack atheists saying that science cannot be used to prove god exists.
4. If your god is so very interested in his human pets knowing about cosmology, physics, biology, physiology and such, then perhaps he should have inducted some of those things in that "perfect book" he divinely inspired. (Then again, i suppose talking about clothing made of fibres was more important).
5. Isn't your using science to try to prove your god is real actually going AGAINST the whole concept of faith? Seems to me that is a bit blasphemous.

Basically, if you're trying to use science to prove your god into existence, then i suggest you join your friends over at the christian chatbox thread or whatever. No doubt they will hang on every word you say. Going to the non-christian thread, however, or running into atheists in a random thread, i'm afraid you will find the gullibility factor WAAAY too low for your tastes. Nice try though

jamesid29:

Good morning ma'am.... I don't think pointing to a post on another forum as your source can be considered authoritative . it's like me directing someone to a post on nairaland that says jubril is the president of Nigeria as authoritative information. Not saying physicsforum.com is a bad website or great answers can't be found there but like most public forums, it is open to opinions and speculations as well. Maybe a better source would have been physics stackexchange, mostly because of the restrictions placed on the way answers are given and their point based system. It's also not authoritative but it's a good place to start.

Secondly, I did read the entire thread u cited and the same post u clipped ur snippet from goes on to say the universe is probably closed in answering the posters question. He only put the part u clipped out in other to break down what the OP was trying to mean by his question. This is the full part u clipped out for context.

He's asking whether it's an open or closed system in the thermodynamics sense of the terms. The universe is open if it is affected by something outside of it. If there is no outside of it then obviously it is a closed system. I think most people define "universe" in terms that require it to be a closed system, though a few people (i.e. brane-world string theorists) use the term somewhat differently.

For the purposes of your question, the answer is probably "closed".

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-an-open-or-a-closed-system.255948/
Anybody can click the link to fact check me and probably just read the full answer.

Thirdly ma'am, I wasn't weighing in on whether the universe is a closed system or not. Kindly read my explanation to thearranger for the highlights I originally made. I think u have a different understanding of the word cosmos.

Either way, I'm not trying to get into a sparing contest. Regardless of what side of the divide we find ourselves on,we are first and foremost humans and all humans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.That means, we might disagree on whether Jesus Christ is the creator of the cosmos or not but we can still disagree without demeaning one another.

Enjoy the holiday ma'am and God bless.

TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA

I am a layman, so let me clarify this for you in my own way.

There is no denial from any Atheists here. No atheist here is making a positive claim about anything. It's all in your head. What we're trying to tell you is very simple: If there is a source or initiator (and that's a big IF because we cannot be a 100% sure), you cannot just conclude that it is "a god". How do you know it isn't a race of intelligent cosmic entities we have no way of verifying? You have to accept that we cannot know everything. Your failure to provide objective proof of this "god" you keep inserting after a whooping six pages is evidence of that. You are displaying a bias towards one option and ruling out the rest based on nothing really. All your arguments use physics, which is still pure natural science. I'm not ready to engage in any pointless back and forth because it appears to me that you are just repeating the same thing over and over. It's of no use.

jamesid29:

Good morning ma'am.... I don't think pointing to a post on another forum as your source can be considered authoritative . it's like me directing someone to a post on nairaland that says jubril is the president of Nigeria as authoritative information. Not saying physicsforum.com is a bad website or great answers can't be found there but like most public forums, it is open to opinions and speculations as well. Maybe a better source would have been physics stackexchange, mostly because of the restrictions placed on the way answers are given and their point based system. It's also not authoritative but it's a good place to start.

Secondly, I did read the entire thread u cited and the same post u clipped ur snippet from goes on to say the universe is probably closed in answering the posters question. He only put the part u clipped out in other to break down what the OP was trying to mean by his question. This is the full part u clipped out for context.

He's asking whether it's an open or closed system in the thermodynamics sense of the terms. The universe is open if it is affected by something outside of it. If there is no outside of it then obviously it is a closed system. I think most people define "universe" in terms that require it to be a closed system, though a few people (i.e. brane-world string theorists) use the term somewhat differently.

For the purposes of your question, the answer is probably "closed".

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-an-open-or-a-closed-system.255948/
Anybody can click the link to fact check me and probably just read the full answer.

Thirdly ma'am, I wasn't weighing in on whether the universe is a closed system or not. Kindly read my explanation to thearranger for the highlights I originally made. I think u have a different understanding of the word cosmos.

Either way, I'm not trying to get into a sparing contest. Regardless of what side of the divide we find ourselves on,we are first and foremost humans and all humans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.That means, we might disagree on whether Jesus Christ is the creator of the cosmos or not but we can still disagree without demeaning one another.

Enjoy the holiday ma'am and God bless.

TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA

I am a layman, so let me clarify this for you in my own way.

There is no denial from any Atheists here. No atheist here is making a positive claim about anything. It's all in your head. What we're trying to tell you is very simple: If there is a source or initiator (and that's a big IF because we cannot be a 100% sure), you cannot just conclude that it is "a god". How do you know it isn't a race of intelligent cosmic entities we have no way of verifying? You have to accept that we cannot know everything. Your failure to provide objective proof of this "god" you keep inserting after a whooping six pages is evidence of that. You are displaying a bias towards one option and ruling out the rest based on nothing really. All your arguments use physics, which is still pure natural science. I'm not ready to engage in any pointless back and forth because it appears to me that you are just repeating the same thing over and over. It's of no use.

shadeyinka:

I very well understand you but I disagree with your submission.

YOU say:
1. I both do not believe the assertion that gods exist
AND
2. I admit I have no way to know if they do or not.

Statement 1 make you an atheist
BUT
Statement 2 make you an agnostic

The implication of statement 2 is that since you already admit that "there is no way to know" if gods exist or not, why argue with affirmation that "the gods do not exist". This to me is no more an agnostic position but a gnostic position.

An agnostic Atheist truly have no basis for arguing with affirmation that "the gods don't exist"

Unfortunately, my experience cannot convince you and I know that. So why assert that "I have experience" when it can at best be subjective.

But, even though my subjective experience cannot convince you, you can't proof that my experience isn't real to me.

But that is understandable: because I will still act with doubt if a person claims that he has seen "Big Foot".

The only way I can logically reach an atheist isn't through my experience (which is real to me) but through science, logics and knowledge of electronics.

However, "I know what I know"!
It's you who don't know, so keep it that way.

Atheists fault Thesists mainly on the basis of science and logics

This is just a rush at judgement with no basis whatsoever.

You know my English isn't that good!

However the word Cosmos I think is a synonym of Universe. Scientifically, there is nothing outside the universe. The boundary of the universe extends from +infinity to -infinity.


If God didn't create the Universe,
Then it's either the Universe had always existed or the universe created itself. On this, every other argument can be built.

You worry about the word "code" when every one who has written a computer program before understand the meaning as "Program" and not "Encryption".

If you had a foggiest idea of computer program, your argument will certainly not go in this manner.
It's one thing to say the DNA are chemicals but Programming can also be hard coded as logic gates within a computer. You have no idea of what you dispute against.

Let me ask you a logics question:
If we live in a 1D world, would we be able to comprehend a 2D world?
In case we can't, can we conclude with certainty that a 2D world doesn't exist?