Buliwyf:


Nope. It's scientifically accepted that the universe as we know it began something like 13.8 billion years ago. That is done by extrapolating from our current position and the rate of expansion of the universe. It says nothing about the Big Bang or the state of the universe before the Big Bang. In fact there are some who actually think that it is not just one bang but a recurring series of expansions and contractions. Anything before the Big bang cannot be known with our current knowledge of physics. And no scientist worth his onions can claim for a fact he/she knows.

So yeah the universe is no different from your god. Because we don't know it's cause or it's actual beginning. But it is even better than your god if only for the mere fact that we can see it, trace and prove it's existence.

By the way, why do you think the universe or any creator should not be subject to the laws of physics? Where is it stated that is a rule? Oh I remember you came to that conclusion all by yourself based on dogma and not with any proof. Just like your religion.

Will the Universe as we know it remain forever?

Crystyano:



Anything with a beginning can't be ever-existing

Of course. Anything that has a beginning or an end cannot be eternal.

Crystyano:



Anything with a beginning can't be ever-existing

Have you ever done programming?
If you understand looping then you wont make this conclusion.
A loop has a beginning but does not have an end.

TenQ:

Will the Universe as we know it remain forever?

We don't know how the universe will end exactly or if it will actually ever do so. It is just speculations based on what we can predict with our limited understanding of physics. Like I said some belief in a recurring big bang. That is an expansion like we are having now and a subsequent contraction back to the state before the Big Bang. Others believe other things. That's why they usually qualify it with the words "as we know it". There are some things we may never know. The universe as we know it may end but it says nothing of what form it will take after or what happens beyond the predictive powers of our current scientific models.

It doesn't matter anyway since we know the universe exists and the earth is in it. No one is arguing about the existence of the universe. The same cannot be said for your god whose only proof of existence is the ridiculous untestable claims of his believers. Which by all sense is no more plausible than the proof of the existence of spider-man and superman.

Myer:


Have you ever done programming?
If you understand looping then you wont make this conclusion.
A loop has a beginning but does not have an end.

Ever-existing means having neither a beginning nor end nor both

LordReed:


Because that is how beliefs work. Beliefs do not require explicit knowledge in other to be formed. People believe all sorts of things they either have no knowledge or very poor knowledge of.

A Belief is a mental position or judgement people make when they have an incomplete information to fully KNOW! The mental position may be taken from logical/rational or emotional perspective. There are also varying degrees to which the logical/rational or emotional arguments is pursued.

This means that ALL forms of agnostism is primarily a BELIEF!

A belief is not necessarily a faulty premise on which judgement is made because in reality manytimes we make decisions where the outcome is not GUARANTEED.
Example:
I take a flight believing that the aeroplane will not crash mid-flight.

Crystyano:


Ever-existing means having neither a beginning nor end nor both

That wasnt your earlier statement.
This however is true.

Buliwyf:


Trying to equate your religion to Santa or SuperMan and using the exclusive opposition to yours alone as a crutch to assert the truth of your religion is dishonest at best.
Everyone knows the aforementioned are make-believe. Nobody has started a making assertions about the afterlife solely on comic book characters or Santa. No one has asked for political laws to be drafted to suit the belief in Santa. No one has tried to deny others right to life and happiness based on what they think Santa wants for the world. The fact that you think that comparison is logical is laughable.

Even though I wasn't referring to you, your coming in shows a psychopathic problem that some people have when they hear about the Name of whom they have rejected.

Stay in your lane as you are free to choose to believe ANYTHING you want. The only thing is you are bound by the consequence of your action. It is a universal law!

TenQ:

Even though I wasn't referring to you, your coming in shows a psychopathic problem that some people have when they hear about the Name of whom they have rejected.

Stay in your lane as you are free to choose to believe ANYTHING you want. The only thing is you are bound by the consequence of your action. It is a universal law!

Lol. This guy has lost his mind after being force fed logic. You were trying to act like you were smart before until you realize you couldn't refute my arguments and now you have started using ad hominem to cloud your foolishness instead of refuting logically.

Let me make it clear because it's obvious you lack comprehension skills and intelligence. The guy is opposing your religion and not spiderman because your god is not different from spiderman but you have elevated it to new heights of foolishness and have started making political discussions about it and setting laws because of it. If you treated your religion the same way people who love comic book characters treat theirs, you won't be here right now chewing cod, lost for words and being petulant.

It doesn't take long for these Christian clowns to lose their mind and start drooling when they can't come up with sound responses. Poor thing. I feel sorry for you. Lol

LordReed:


Urine? Do you mean ingesting it? I believe it might provide marginal usefulness when ingested but too marginal to be truly useful. If you mean just its expulsion from the body then yes I believe it has a lot of functionality for humans.

No!
It's not urine.
Urine is ìtọ̀
Saliva is itọ́
I am asking about "Ito" sounds like (Omi=water) in pronunciation. It's actually an old Yoruba word (depreciated).

So, here is the question again properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

Buliwyf:


Lol. This guy has lost his mind after being force fed logic. You were trying to act like you were smart before until you realize you couldn't refute my arguments and now you have started using ad hominem to cloud your foolishness instead of refuting logically.

Let me make it clear because it's obvious you lack comprehension skills and intelligence. The guy is opposing your religion and not spiderman because your god is not different from spiderman but you have elevated it to new heights of foolishness and have started making political discussions about it and setting laws because of it. If you treated your religion the same way people who love comic book characters treat theirs, you won't be here right now chewing cod, lost for words and being petulant.

It doesn't take long for these Christian clowns to lose their mind and start drooling when they can't come up with sound responses. Poor thing. I feel sorry for you. Lol

You didn't make any argument. You came in splashing about like a drowning orangutan. That post wasn't referring to you. It was a response to someone else based on the conversations we've had.

If you had come to defend him, then started from where the conversation led to my comment to him

Buliwyf:


We don't know how the universe will end exactly or if it will actually ever do so. It is just speculations based on what we can predict with our limited understanding of physics. Like I said some belief in a recurring big bang. That is an expansion like we are having now and a subsequent contraction back to the state before the Big Bang. Others believe other things. That's why they usually qualify it with the words "as we know it". There are some things we may never know. The universe as we know it may end but it says nothing of what form it will take after or what happens beyond the predictive powers of our current scientific models.

It doesn't matter anyway since we know the universe exists and the earth is in it. No one is arguing about the existence of the universe. The same cannot be said for your god whose only proof of existence is the ridiculous untestable claims of his believers. Which by all sense is no more plausible than the proof of the existence of spider-man and superman.

You don't know!?

What does science say about the entropy of the universe. Is it constant, decreasing or increasing?

TenQ:

You didn't make any argument. You came in splashing about like a drowning orangutan. That post wasn't referring to you. It was a response to someone else based on the conversations we've had.

If you had come to defend him, then started from where the conversation led to my comment to him

You are obviously an odious buffoon. The post wasn't about me but the question was posed to you like a gentleman just to hear what you will say and you replied like a gentleman because you thought you had a point. Then after like 6 or 7 back and forth comments between you and I that you realized you didn't know what to add anymore since you can't prove your claims just like you can't prove your god, you decided it was better to attack my personality instead.

You are a fool. A worst fool I am yet to meet.

Buliwyf:


You are obviously an odious buffoon. The post wasn't about me but the question was posed to you like a gentleman just to hear what you will say and you replied like a gentleman because you thought you had a point. Then after like 6 or 7 back and forth comments between you and I that you realized you didn't know what to add anymore since you can't prove your claims just like you can't prove your god, you decided it was better to attack my personality instead.

You are a fool. A worst fool I am yet to meet.

Thank you!
Are you done?

TenQ:

You don't know!?

What does science say about the entropy of the universe. Is it constant, decreasing or increasing?

Now you want to continue the conversation because I called you out on your inability to refute logically? You are a clown. I am not interested in having a civil conversation with you anymore because you have revealed to me that there is a beast of burden beneath that sensible christian veneer you tried to hoodwink people with from the beginning of this thread. You are not interested in anything logical or even science. You just want to assert that your god exists and we must accept it as a fact. Freaking nitwit.

TenQ:

No!
It's not urine.
Urine is ìtọ̀
Saliva is itọ́
I am asking about "Ito" sounds like (Omi=water) in pronunciation. It's actually an old Yoruba word (depreciated).

So, here is the question again properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

I lack belief of the ito since I don't know what it is.

TenQ:

It is scientifically accepted that the universe has a beginning about 13.8billion years.
It is scientifically accepted that the universe with end through the dissipation of its energy.

The universe cannot logically create itself.Why?
It needs to be a timeless constant entity.
It should not be subject to the laws of physics

Wrong. Science doesn't say the universe has a beginning.

LordReed:


I lack belief of the ito since I don't know what it is.

That is nonsensical! It's like basing your "lack of belief" on ignorance and not on any sensible judgement.

The sensible question you should have asked is: what is Ito?

Your refusal to KNOW actually doesn't change anything about the question asked.

It is the explanation that a rational man will use as a basis of Belief or Disbelief.

What if I ask you another question:

Do you believe "hairs" has any function on humans?

TenQ:



A Belief is a mental position or judgement people make when they have an incomplete information to fully KNOW! The mental position may be taken from logical/rational or emotional perspective. There are also varying degrees to which the logical/rational or emotional arguments is pursued.

This means that ALL forms of agnostism is primarily a BELIEF!

A belief is not necessarily a faulty premise on which judgement is made because in reality manytimes we make decisions where the outcome is not GUARANTEED.
Example:

I take a flight believing that the aeroplane will not crash mid-flight.

Wrong. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge not belief.

TenQ:

That is nonsensical! It's like basing your "lack of belief" on ignorance and not on any sensible judgement.

The sensible question you should have asked is: what is Ito?

Your refusal to KNOW actually doesn't change anything about the question asked.

It is the explanation that a rational man will use as a basis of Belief or Disbelief.

What if I ask you another question:

Do you believe "hairs" has any function on humans?

You are starting to lose it.

You are trying trick questions now because your position is just full of self deceit. I attempted to define ito but you said I was wrong but instead of you to actual define ito you thought you could trap me. One cannot have beliefs in what one doesn't know however that lack of knowledge came about. Your trap fails. Lack of belief is not disbelief. Stop dribbling your own shadow.

Buliwyf:


Lol. This guy has lost his mind after being force fed logic. You were trying to act like you were smart before until you realize you couldn't refute my arguments and now you have started using ad hominem to cloud your foolishness instead of refuting logically.

Let me make it clear because it's obvious you lack comprehension skills and intelligence. The guy is opposing your religion and not spiderman because your god is not different from spiderman but you have elevated it to new heights of foolishness and have started making political discussions about it and setting laws because of it. If you treated your religion the same way people who love comic book characters treat theirs, you won't be here right now chewing cod, lost for words and being petulant.

It doesn't take long for these Christian clowns to lose their mind and start drooling when they can't come up with sound responses. Poor thing. I feel sorry for you. Lol

I will create another topic titled 'What's the essence of theism?'


Atheism is proven not to prevent certain things from entering one's head (the essence of this thread) but theists keep considering theism as a solution to this or that(the essence of the topic I want to create)



Anyway, I don't think there's any God that's worth talking about..... but some theists see that as an obsession... wrongly concluding that it means I am obsessed with God-stuff.

Myer:


Have you ever done programming?
If you understand looping then you wont make this conclusion.
A loop has a beginning but does not have an end.

All loops have an end sir( either by design or by hardware constraints).

Every loop is designed to have an exit condition, either predetermined at runtime (set amount of time the loop should run) or by having an exit clause ( a condition that lets the loop know when it should breakout of itself).
A common rookie mistake especially with "While Loops" is when the developer incorrectly sets or forgets to set the condition for the loop to break out of itself. This is probably what you might be referring to: " The infinite loop".
This is just the name, because in reality the loop is not infinite. What happens is, the program would get stuck in this loop until it reaches the hardware constraint or language constraints, and then crashes.
Even if you have a system as big as the universe, it would still hit it's constraints and eventually crash.

LordReed:


Wrong. Science doesn't say the universe has a beginning.

Science says that sir. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
Every known physics we have points to a universe with an ultimate beginning point.
What science can't say is what was, prior to the universe.

jamesid29:

Science says that sir. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
Every known physics we have points to a universe with an ultimate beginning point.
What science can't say is what was, prior to the universe.

You would only say that if you thought there was nothing before the BB. There was something before the expansion began, you cannot discount that something.

LordReed:


You would only say that if you thought there was nothing before the BB. There was something before the expansion began, you cannot discount that something.

Like I said sir, all known physics and theory states that the in universe has a beginning. Inflation might be eternal to the future but not to the past.
This is not just my opinion or theistic bias. This is standard cosmology.

A number of physicists have tried to create models of an eternal universe especially since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity but the BGV theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold.
Basically as long as the average expansion rate is positive along a given world line, or geodesic, then this geodesic must terminate after a finite amount of time.

As you said sir, there has to be something before the universe. The first speck of space, energy & the fundamental laws have had to come from somewhere but that is outside of the hard sciences and into the realm of the meta physical & other disciplines.
But the point is, this universe did have an ultimate starting point. Any other conclusion draws not on what we know, but on what we don't know.

By the way, Vilenkin etc are agnostic as far as I know and do not ascribe the beginning of this universe to a deity or affirms the existence of one. As stated above, that's outside of what physics or what the theory can describe and of course speculations abound.
What is affirmed is that given the theorem the only way to avoid a beginning is to appeal to unknown physics.

LordReed:


You are starting to lose it.

You are trying trick questions now because your position is just full of self deceit. I attempted to define ito but you said I was wrong but instead of you to actual define ito you thought you could trap me. One cannot have beliefs in what one doesn't know however that lack of knowledge came about. Your trap fails. Lack of belief is not disbelief. Stop dribbling your own shadow.

You didn't get my point.

The fact that you claimed "lack of belief" with the simple question was a result of a WILLING IGNORANCE! You chose to take a position without finding out to the limit of opportunities available to you.

The word "Ito" simply means hair (the modern replacement for it is irun). It wasn't a trick question, it was a question to show that
1. A person can choose the nonsensical position in not being interested in knowing. In that case, willing ignorance seem like a bliss.
2. An effort to ask questions or seek for a knowing will ultimately lead to an intelligent response and conclusion.
In this respect, it is not important if the subject agrees or disagrees with the question. The important thing is that he took a rational decision.
3. Either way the question was answered, it is still a belief based on your conviction.

However, the option of sitting on the fence without any attempt to know is a reckless and dumb position one can take.

LordReed:


Wrong. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge not belief.

You just showed an example by not attempting to understand what you have rejected yet relishing the fact that your claim of lack of belief is the most intelligent response to whether you believe that hair on people have any benefit.

Agnostism is a position that claims that knowing is impossible!

Therefore your choice is based on not knowing.

Does not knowing make your position TRUE?

LordReed:


Wrong. Science doesn't say the universe has a beginning.

Can you define the universe?
Is the universe the same as the gravitational singularity that inflated to form space, time and matter as we know it?

jamesid29:

Like I said sir, all known physics and theory states that the in universe has a beginning. Inflation might be eternal to the future but not to the past.
This is not just my opinion or theistic bias. This is standard cosmology.

A number of physicists have tried to create models of an eternal universe especially since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity but the BGV theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold.
Basically as long as the average expansion rate is positive along a given world line, or geodesic, then this geodesic must terminate after a finite amount of time.

As you said sir, there has to be something before the universe. The first speck of space, energy & the fundamental laws have had to come from somewhere but that is outside of the hard sciences and into the realm of the meta physical & other disciplines.
But the point is, this universe did have an ultimate starting point. Any other conclusion draws not on what we know, but on what we don't know.

By the way, Vilenkin etc are agnostic as far as I know and do not ascribe the beginning of this universe to a deity or affirms the existence of one. As stated above, that's outside of what physics or what the theory can describe and of course speculations abound.
What is affirmed is that given the theorem the only way to avoid a beginning is to appeal to unknown physics.

Here we go again. I don't know how many times this has to be corrected and it is usually peddled by Christians who are trying to use it as an assertion that their god must have created the universe because it has a beginning. The picture attached below is from Wikipedia page about the BGV theorem. As you can see the theorem only claims to know the beginning of the universe as we know it. Not anything that exists before the Big Bang.

I don't even know how the theorem even proves the existence of the Christian god. We are discussing the beginning of the universe because the universe can be proven to exist. The problem is that Christians try to leapfrog this proof and claim that their god is everlasting and must have created the universe without first showing their god exists in the first place.

The only thing we know for sure without any doubt is that the universe exists in one form or another and we are a part of it. If there is a god, it is probably the universe itself and we are all just expressions of it. The universe is more believable as a deity than any guy on a throne behind the clouds who cannot manifest in any meaningful way but impregnates women to give birth to himself and still fail at his goal while his followers are splintered into a million factions with differing orders from him.

Buliwyf:


Now you want to continue the conversation because I called you out on your inability to refute logically? You are a clown. I am not interested in having a civil conversation with you anymore because you have revealed to me that there is a beast of burden beneath that sensible christian veneer you tried to hoodwink people with from the beginning of this thread. You are not interested in anything logical or even science. You just want to assert that your god exists and we must accept it as a fact. Freaking nitwit.

Two separate threads!
In one you were trashing about
In the other you were civil.

Each one deserves their kind of response.

On this, I would understand if you cannot answer the question about the entropy of the universe!

Note:
This is a faceless forum. You can't call people out! You must be new on NL!

TenQ:

Two separate threads!
In one you were trashing about
In the other you were civil.

Each one deserves their kind of response.

On this, I would understand if you cannot answer the question about the entropy of the universe!

Note:
This is a faceless forum. You can't call people out! You must be new on NL!

Even on a faceless forum you can call people out by their moniker. Just not in their personal lives.

That said, can you calculate the entropy of the universe cos you seem to like to throw out "jargons" that you dont even understand their meaning.

Myer:


Even on a faceless forum you can call people out by their moniker. Just not in their personal lives.

That said, can you calculate the entropy of the universe cos you seem to like to throw out "jargons" that you dont even understand their meaning.

I didn't ask you to calculate the entropy of the universe.
I said:

TenQ:

You don't know!?

What does science say about the entropy of the universe. Is it 1.constant,
2. decreasing or
3. increasing?