₦airaland Forum

Mr_Anony: yawns

So?

musKeeto: The men married each other's daughters from a different marriage.

Man A has daughter A
Man B has daughter B

Man B marries daughter A
Man A marries daughter B

This works, and so does the other

Reyginus: ^^^ Your last line interests me. But I'm not going to touch on them.
My points are well packaged, where they appear as questions, like in 136, they are meant to be rhetorical and a polite mockery of the scientific explanations.
The question we should be asking here is, if you hold that determinism is not feasible, how then do you explain a phenomenon based on determinism?

Sarcastic? Well I never. I'm now extremely offended ....

NOTE: I AM NOT 100%. NEITHER IS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AS OF NOW. THE EVIDENCE POINTS THAT WAY BUT ONE CANNOT BE FULLY CERTAIN, NOT UNTIL A TRUE THEORY OF EVERYTHING SHOWS UP.

But as it stands now, addressing the bolded question directly, we don't. Quantum mechanics is built around probabilities.

However:

wiegraf: In practice though, the odds of you actually walking through a wall are so low the machine you are using right now may not even be able to calculate the number, at least not immediately.

So again, remember effective theories. We don't need to consider quantum effects in most daily life, newtonian mechanics will do just fine. This does not mean either theory is wrong, just one is less accurate. And considering the odds and effects, using the more accurate one in by far the majority of scenario's is ridiculously silly, as the effects would be negligible.

This does not amount to unfounded claims, at all. They are built around reason and the best information, tools etc that we have, or the evidence.

Random: philosophically, I suppose you could spin it around however you want to. But science is practical, needs some empiricism, etc. So that question I believe is more philosophical, science could care less.

Like kay said earlier

Kay 17: Its the ultimate search is for truth not explanation. The big ban.g relates to the beginning of this Universe, there could be many more but I don't believe such. So it is not the beginning of all things, just follow the scientific arguments as they are, don't add your jara. Cos if you do, you will not understand it.

And a semi-related random tidbit, science is very happy with saying "I don't know" when it doesn't. However, that does not mean claims from elsewhere are valid, most especially when said claims have not been proven

Reyginus: SMH. It seems you've forgotten the arguement we are making here.

No I was simply answering a question

Reyginus: Lol. What are you doing? Are you throwing my question back to me or what?
I thought heisenberg was only showing us how limited our knowledge of physical properties at the subatomic level are? How are you now drawing that reality is not deterministic, when when heisenberg is uncertain what happens at that level?

What are you on about? Do you want me to lie to fit my desired outcome? That's not the way science works, yes?

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

No. We make predictions, nothing physical is 100% sure it would seem, as it is built around odds (and note this is for physical claims not logical, 1+1=2, absolutely). Science does not lie about that, it explicitly makes clear that as for now considering what we know and what the evidence clearly suggests (even physical, lab confirmed evidence, not just abstract), uncertainty holds and this universe is not actually deterministic, so it's all about odds. In practice though, the odds of you actually walking through a wall are so low the machine you are using might right now may not even be able to calculate the number, at least not immediately.

So again, remember effective theories. We don't need to consider quantum effects in most daily life, newtonian mechanics will do just fine. This does not mean either theory is wrong, just one is less accurate. And considering the odds and effects, using the more accurate one in by far the majority of scenario's is ridiculously silly, as the effects would be negligible.

And on another note, aren't you religious? Don't you know determinism implies predestination? Wouldn't that put a wrench into the whole sending people to hell and free will thing?

On the flip side though, when the world cup was moved to africa a lot of strange $hit happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2010_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies

Dutch became thugs,
France became even bigger eediots
Messi was (just about) human
All the ball's flew through the air suspiciously, they would be heading this way next thing they'll veer violently in the opposite direction, as if someone just prayed mid air that it should change direction and the prayer was answered

And especially
Suarez' shenanigans, the handball, penalty saved, they then went out on penalties; somebody jazzed ghana

etc etc

From this I can conclude that jazz works, but only on the African continent

Mr_Anony: Actually, if you don't think that 1+1=3, you must show that 1+1=2. You can't claim that something is wrong without pointing out why it is wrong by showing what the right answer ought to be.

This is unadulterated folly, so drop it as it's again, really irritating. This is the more accurate version
"You can't claim that something is wrong without pointing out why it is wrong OR by showing what the right answer ought to be."

All I have to do is show you why, the rest is optional. Seems to me you operate as if you already have a conclusion and do everything you can to match it. If whatever steps you have drawn out do not add up logically, then you are wrong. Simple.

Supposing I had an hourglass built to last 1 hour exactly, set it up and made my way to Pikkiwokki's house while moving at 60km/h and steadily maintained that speed. Supposing by the time I reached my destination the hourglass was used up yet I still claimed that I covered only 60km, would you need to know the exact distance I traveled before pointing out I was being stoopid? Simple. A-4king-gain. It does not add up. Quit this as it's very 4king basic, as basic as it gets, yet you somehow don't understand it now that it seems to not be in your favor.

Mr_Anony: Now I think on this issue of omniscience we have argued round and round and eventually shifted from the focus a bit.

I have given you a good definition of omniscience and essentially the fact that someone else knows exactly what choice you will make next does not take away from you the power to make that choice.

Bold does not add up, how many times have I told you this? His knowing what you are going to do, without any chance of failure, without any odds being involved, means there is only one future that will actually come to pass. The very description of predestination. That is all.

Mr_Anony: Similarly, the fact that an omniscient being knows what he would do next does not take away from him the power to act according to his plans if anything, it reinforces it because then his will becomes the determiner that isn't predetermined by something else (remember that the omniscient being is not a temporal being by nature but is only acting temporally)

Total nonsense. Can he have any new thoughts or not? If he can, then he most certainly is not the traditional definition of omniscient, at all. As he just had thoughts he did not know he would have, yes? That is all that matters, time traveling or whatever does not matter, I've told you this how many times? As far as the omniscients free will is concerned, absolutely no other thing matters, just this: Can he have new thoughts?

He just had a new thought? He's not omniscient. He does not know if he'll change his mind later and change his or our fate, then that means he cannot predict with 100% certainty what would happen to us in our own temporal universe tomorrow. He can't even tell us for certain what happened yesterday by your definition, as he could simply go back and change it if he wishes.

You have stated clearly that he cannot have new thoughts anony, so this is open and shut, unless you want to redefine omniscience.

Mr_Anony: Now to your question

About God "changing His mind". . . . .well not really. If God knows everything and the future is not fixed, then God when acting temporally can appear to change His mind.

You say he cannot change his mind in red, then you say our fate is not predetermined
You then say in bold that god knows everything yet the future is not fixed

These are bold faced lies. The rest tumbles miserably on its head, as your premises are akin to saying 0 = 1. For instance

"I will make a distinction between freewill and freechoice in the sense that man is free to make his choices but can't dictate the outcomes or the preceding events that brought him to the point of making the choice because he doesn't know what choices other people are making and have made"

With 'free choice' here, what you are basically saying here is his free will is an illusion. He makes choices but ultimately he must bend to the predestined path. All his actions are what not are just show, already written out. He must follow the path set for him. Explain to me where free will is involved if he cannot rewrite his fate?
Besides that, hth does whatever choices people have to make do with anything in the first place? Only other peoples choices have a say in the future. What if while taking a hike he falls down a cliff and dies, by total accident. No one else was involved in his misfortune, no? WTH? Why does his knowing their choices matter? All it will do is affect his own choices, but he must still follow the path set out to him FFS, the omniscient cannot be wrong and has already foreseen this!

"God on the other hand can see every single choice and action made by everyone therefore God's actions are not predetermined and so His will is free (in the true sense of the word)"

Again, what does seeing every choice have to do with free will? 4k

Again, all that matters is god already knows with absolute certainty what will happen, and neither you nor him can deviate from this path, regardless of whatever you do. THAT THERE IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PREDESTINATION. Are we clear on that?

Atheist:-D:
To be honest. Nigerians have not covered themselves with glory in this regard.

Their superstitious beliefs are really over the top. Remember that story about the police arresting a goat because ppl thought it was a thief at a market? They held it in custody for 2 weeks. Once everyone forgot about the ordeal they made goat suya... or maybe peppered goat meat out of the goat

In rhe early 90s there was also the fear that if someone tapped you from behind you would lose your jt. There were so many stories of ppl it had happened to. Even newspapers carried a few. But til today no one who has lost his dick has come forward to have pics taken to prove it happened.

You had to put pins in your pockets to prevent the theft.

A friend of mine was arrested, after stating so then retracting he admits that yes, it was because he was accused of stealing a jt by some random dude. After spending the night 'behind counter' apparently the jt returned from its sojourn, and all was well and good in the universe for the rightful owner, and my brah now released. The mix up cleared, he was apologized to, etc

We're watching tv or what not I cannot remember(just a few months after his arrest), but the story of the shape shifting goat comes up, my brah looks at me, agitated as he usually is and tells me "see, and u no dey believe am! See am na for nta! U no see say even a whole educated big boi police oga believe am? Na u want come talk nonsense now?". And he's educated and intelligent, not to mention an extremely "sharp" guy when need be. True story

Another bigot meet up? Lots of bu.tt hurt sheep in here it seems.

truthislight: ok, true to type and kind.

Meh

Evil Brain: I dropped out of the thread for a a day or two and look what has happened. Some rètards have gotten it into their heads that they can refute the big bàng theory even though they don't even have a basic understanding of what it means or how it was arrived at.

Reading Nairaland these days is like watching the Jerry Springer show. You sit down, laugh at the crazy people and thank the FSM that you're not one of them.

Long shall this be remembered

Reyginus: Lol. What are you doing? Are you throwing my question back to me or what?
I thought heisenberg was only showing us how limited our knowledge of physical properties at the subatomic level are? How are you now drawing that reality is not deterministic, when when heisenberg is uncertain what happens at that level?

You aren't mixing up uncertainty with the observer effect, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

Difference between that and uncertainty

"Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer."

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

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

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

Logicboy03: Wiegraff, I think this guy is a nicer version of Sagamite

But @sagamite is genuinely stoopid. The real deal. He's like an atheist(not sure if atheist though, as again I cannot understand how he was able to escape xtianity) @vedax. @Reyg just has a very strong case of the delusion.

Reyginus: Lol. I am interested in this part. Your link claimed that antimatter come and go out of existence in the beginning. If this is so, how then is it possible that everything in the beginning was a singularity? In other words, can the beginning be both static and dynamic?

Nobody knows didley squat about before the beginning, if it even exists ie. Well it most exist in a sense, as even if you say nothing existed, 'nothing' is something that existed. Anyhow I'm not too sure what you're asking here but you have to consider uncertainty. Now, ignoring the official version of uncertainty, when I think about it there has to have been a truly random event, a something from nothing event, to spark this universe. If everything were completely ordered, like you seem to have noted with the matter-antimatter balance, everything would be in perfect equilibrum, so where from the unbalance that led to this universe?

So basically, my case is something from nothing, crazy as it sounds, must exist in some form or the other. Heisenbergs uncertainty demonstrates that, the fancy math of bells inequalities point there as well. So..

tl; dr: probably any reality is likely not deterministic. Flux would come from there. My view, no iron clad explanation available I think.



Lol*t the hypocrisy in science comment *smh*

truthislight: true to kind, No?

Meeeh?

truthislight: "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the debaters/disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified,
unto the Jews a stumblingblock,
and unto the Greeks foolishness,

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

." (1 Corinthians 1:20-25)

QED

That reads like meeeeehhh, mmmmeeeehhhh, meehhh? Mmmmmeeeeehhhh!!! Meehh, meh...

Reyginus: Why are you still missing it? Science claims the antimatter was generated and annihilated. My position is, where is the proof that it was generated in the first place. On another note, is it possible to create an equillibrium in a system still under entropy?

If I mentioned it was the most expensive thing we could generate, I hope the possibility that it had been produced first before it was deemed expensive crossed your mind? It did (note, not a question). So you want me to see it with my eyes first? If that were the way used to determine if the item really were antimatter, how would I even confirm I was looking at anti-matter? It looks distinctly different from other particles? You do know there are highly trained scientists a lot more suitable than me for that task than me, yes?

Material backed up by logic, peer reviewed doggedly and confirmed to have been produced by scientists from all walks of life, and you want me to physically confirm it before I believe it was produced? I've never seen any electromagnetic waves, or gravitational waves, or a whale, or the planet saturn through a telescope as well. I shouldn't believe that these exist despite the well documented evidence for their existence?

Hmmm. This isn't like my belief in pikkiwokki or yours in god you know? They are not based on faith, let alone blind faith you know? They are not based on 'beliefs' as well actually. They are based on facts, and note that regardless of what I 'believe' or want, these things objectively exist.

As for equilibrum, what does that have to do with anything? Off the top of my head I would have to say.... No. Except if a perfect vacuum (if perfect vacuums exist, ie) counts. But I'm no pro

Logic boy

Perfect, the xtian votes will be split...
MUA HA HA...errr
Ahh, there's another round....

....
....

Mr_Anony: To reject a position, you must have a counter-position which accept based upon which you reject the position else your objection is null. You cannot argue in a vacuum.

Suddenly, you've forgotten how the burden of proof works. Was it earlier in this thread or another where you miraculously understood how it worked when it benefited you? Or are you working around proven facts somewhere here that I have to disprove?

Let me explain what we have here, you have basically claimed 1+1=3. I don't have to prove to you 1 + 1 = 2 to point out you're so, so wrong. I don't have to know the answer, I don't have to show you an alternative answer. All I have to do is prove your claim is false. All I have to do is show you that 1 + 1 != 3. Do you understand now?

Mr_Anony: If you are arguing about an omniscient being's freewill then you are arguing a strawman because the presence or absence of his freewill here is not what is in question at this point and is not relevant to whether your future is fixed or variable.

I'm not even sure if you know what a strawman is, but here
Original question:

wiegraf: So now I am asking you if you know any xtians who have via prayer or otherwise changed the mind of your omniscient god? Is it possible to do so?

Notice who's free will I am asking about? Not to mention doesn't the question require resolving the nature of omniscience since you somehow think omniscience can exist alongside free will? That is clearly impossible using the standard definition of omniscience, so you now have to give us your definition. You've given a definition, I've told you it's completely illogical to hold that position and maintain the being still has free will, and shown you how. Now we're at this point.

But very regardless, even if I wasn't asking about yahwehs free will but that of the average persons, yahwehs free will is still very, very much relevant. Because, like I've already stated, yahweh's (assuming he existed) fate is linked with ours. If yahweh's actions were predetermined, and he interacts with us, then we would be required to play out our parts as well.

Say yahweh was supposed to show up on cnn this morning, then everyone involved would have to show up as scripted. The reporters, the cameramen, the viewers, they would all have to be there to satisfy yahweh's predetermined course, regardless of whatever they tried to do. And so there you have it, if yahweh's course is predetermined, then so is ours.

He need not even be necessarily in this galaxy, let alone this planet, to effect us. But showing that would require time and is fairly needless atm. Then you also claim he created the universe, which would also be a predetermined act. And if you claimed he was omnipresent...

anony: The case before us is the freewill of those he observes I have given you a definition of omniscience that makes it clear that the fact that he knows what you will do next does not mean you are not the one doing it of your own accord. His omniscience does not in any way undermine your freewill.

That is probably not the case before us. Anyways, again, his knowing unfailingly and completely what is going to happen to you is the very definition of predestination. Predestination is the very opposite of having free will. How in what universe can you stare directly at black and call it white?

Mr_Anony: Essentially you have not made a complete and valid counter argument. Your counter-argument appears like this:

If an omniscient being exists, then the future is fixed. The question that follows from here is: Is the future fixed? It is now whether the future is fixed or not fixed that will determine the existence of an omniscient being according to your premise. You have declined to answer.

You see the bolded? That is all. There is no question asked after that. Once examined (a step you seem to be skipping or ignoring), that there is a 1 + 1 = 2 fact. It is our 1 + 1 != 3 to be more accurate. The rest of the text there is completely irrelevant (and features some more crazy anonilogic), it in no way shows how that fact right there can be wrong. It is simple logic.

Also, as I have told you several times, I am not making a claim. I am simply pointing out a fact. Omniscience without any probabilities or chance involved is only possible with predestination. Simple. Once you say there is no chance whatsoever of yahweh being wrong, then the universe and all in it (including him) are predetermined.

Mr_Anony: If you can't tell me whether the future is fixed or not, then you also lose the grounds to argue for the non-existence of an omniscient being. Your argument is incomplete, you cannot have it both ways.

See above.

I am not make any claims ffs. I don't believe in gods, santa, satan, omoniscients, blah 4king blah so wtf should I be making claims about these? All I do is show you when you make a nonsense claim that it is nonsense...

4k

davidylan: The more things appear to change, the more they remain the same.
Still the same nauseating tactic -

1. When you're pressed to define your position, just post links and cry that others should "read"
2. when you're called out on your shameless deciet... just go ahead and cover it with personal insults. Dont forget to whine that you have been insulted to boot.
3. When all else fails, accuse the other person of trolling.

Voila. you get to crow around like you do know something while saying exactly nothing.

Bro... it does get tiring after a while.

I thought reyginus was pretty clear - what is the evidence for the big bang... yet you post a wikipedia link to antimatter? How exactly does antimatter prove the theory? Hasnt the failure of the hauldron collider proven what we already knew? That all that guff was just a charade?

You are a troll, that is a fact, so why complain. If you don't want to be a troll then stop trolling. For instance, it's either you haven't read this thread or you're being disingenuous, and both are trollish. Else you should know that

Logic has already quoted sources as well as provide links
I've provided links, as well as tried to explain how effective theories
The antimatter link is in response to reyg asking lb if he'd ever seen antimatter before. Seems he was unaware that antimatter has actually been produced before

And I've been using various examples including antimatter to show reyg how the scientific method works, how predictions from logically sound arguments are tested etc. Something he well knows but as he's in religion mode it tends to cloud ones reasoning.

Yet here you are claiming antimatter is a red herring, we haven't provided him with evidence (I even went out of my way to try to explain effective theories), and you aren't a troll. And I didn't even say you were trolling, I said I hope you aren't going to troll. Did some guilt kick in?

And then you claim the lhc was a failure... In what way, oh exalted one?

So again, you are a troll. And considering this lhc comment, htf are you a scientist? It genuinely strikes as me as one of the wonders of the world

Mr_Anony: As I always say, the fact that you don't understand something does not make it flawed.

I have asked you previously to state your stance. "Do you believe the future is fixed or not?" You have declined to answer but you want to argue on both sides of the question. You can't have it both ways sir.

This is why you are considered, well...
My position isn't being debated, mr lalala, yours is. I have not made any claims as to what whether I believe the future is fixed or not, or you didn't notice that? You, on the other hand, have. I am pointing out that your claim is complete and utter rubbish thus you should not attach the word logic to it, as it's insulting the intelligence of those around you. How would you feel if I constantly claimed that bill gates lawns my grass? That's how others feel when you go around claiming your ideas are logical.

There is nothing to understand in your claim. Regardless of whether he time travels or whatever it is, so long as he cannot have any new thoughts, then he has no free will, simple. Very. That is it. That is the logical way to look at it. No but, if or any thing else.

davidylan: lol the tactic still fails to change. Atheists forever unable to defend their position... rather they tell you to go and read and produce 2000 links they themselves have never read.

Dylan?
Shut it
Proof has been posted, infamous biologist (heh heh) directly yet he refuses to read it. These are well known, established facts as well, nothing esoteric

on another note, isn't today lovely? I hope you didn't come out just troll?

Mr_Anony: I have provided logical reasons why I don't.

You clearly haven't.
Of course, you can believe in whatever you wish to believe in, who cares really. What grates me is you attach this word - logic - to it. You've now venture into the objective, more or else. And again, you're clearly wrong.

truthislight: my friend, i dont know the God you are fixing into this your pocket, if it is the creator of the univers it will not size.

If you are reasonable, then he is trillion * trillion times far more reasonable.

He has has shown reasonable to many of his prophets.

The example of him regreating that he created man on earth should tell you alot about the long rope he gives to man:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented(regreat) the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." (Genesis 6:5-6).
................
Reasonable is a virtue and he has the highest of it among all.

Does that look like what you are talking about?

If there are things that you do that are reasonable, just know that he operate in trillion * trillion times of it.

If human are created in his image, then he is the original while human are the duplicate.

I stick to what the bible in general support Genesis to revelation and not what human ascribed to him.

Infact, the bible shows that Yahweh reacts to the way human that are freewill agent do thinks as to reward them according and perfectly.

He is under no constrains. No boundaries.

If he wishes for any scenario he can arranged it without hindrance.

Can your mind contain him?

What does all this have to do with anything? Or are you trying to say I am wrong just because? Or is this an attempt at some sort of jedi mind trick?
wow...
sheeple will be sheeple I guess...

obadiah777: *SMDH*

More strange behavior. Why are you SMDH at a heathen? Shouldn't you expect a heathen to behave like a heathen? Seems you're a secret romantic, hmmm? All you really want are disgusting things like universal peace and love, not fire and brimstone of the end days, hmmm?

Reyginus: Why are you dancing around? The question is, what is the proof of the big b.ang since science deals in proofs?

Do you know how to read?
Better yet, can you click on links?
Click on the ones in that post.

And antimatter is the considered the most expensive thing we can generate. If you can read, which you seem to be capable of doing when it suits your cause, read this aw well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Artificial_production

Or better yet, use google since it seems you have a problem clicking on my links or reading lb's posts.

@deity damned troll, dammit... and on such a nice day as well...

PDP dey work for here, heh heh

I been change my vote before the alloted time abeg, abi I gawk am and do am too late? Down with theists!!

ATHEISTS!!ATHEISTS!!ATHEISTS!!ATHEISTS!!ATHEISTS!!ATHEISTS!!ATHEISTS!!

Logicboy03: Thats why you burn 75% of both either they both clock at 45 minutes (unlikely) or one clocks at 45 minutes. Or else, it is impossible. The fuse that takes the longer time to reach a 3/4 is 45 mins long.

I googled the question and the answer is that one has to assume that the ropes burn at a uniform rate and burn one from both sides and the other from one side

Cheat. And I still don't get it... I will when my brain relaxes I suppose

Reyginus: Nothing is complicated here. Only that science whose truth can only be gotten from proof is making 'unfounded claims'. Have you ever seen an anti-matter?

Like so many other things with science, antimatter was predicted, and guess what, it has been created/observed. For instance, the Higgs Boson which was predicted oh so long ago, eventually confirmed and found. Using only logic for the most part, einstein predicted a star would bend light, lo and behold, he was found to be correct. Sound logic, analyses that can be tested and confirmed, these are not unfounded claims. What are you on about?

Reyginus: What exactly is your point? You are equating the formation of rain with the big b.ang? Seriously? What is the water cycle to begin with? What is the function of hydrometer in a phenomenon without a proof?
For now, all you've said are based on assumptions that are even erroneous to put it rightly.
How is proof everywhere yet you've not given any one that supports it?

What is this whargabble nonsense? I specified that as 'random', or did you not notice that? But regardless, even if not 'random', it is still very relevant, and you've now displayed either terrible comprehension skills or willful blindness.

The point is to show you how effective theories work. Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_theory

I do not equate rain to the big b.ang, I use that to simply show how one would deduce or form theories from observable phenomena and sound logical assumptions, shikena. It is not supposed to be an accurate description of how rain is formed ffs. As for proof for the big ba.ng, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SHOWN. If you refuse to read or assess it then that's your problem, not mine. Here, plenty, again and more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence
https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=evidence+for+the+big+bang&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Google is always a good friend.

And again, what to take from that is that a theory need not be completely accurate, but that does not mean it is wrong, it simply means it needs some work. The big ban.g is one of those and some details need to be ironed out. Actually, in a sense, you could say all physical theories today need some work until the 'theory of everything' is actually found, as it effect...everything (hence the name).

truthislight: if Yahweh does that(ensure that you do his will bidding) your freewill will have been tampered with.

Though he can and have the power to, it is not what i learn from the bible that he does.

Yahweh knows the outcome of events but does not go "remote controlling all person" to do what he wants all the time.

But from the choices of individuals he knows what the outcome will be.

I dont flow with this "omniscient/predestined" stuff since i dont understand it that way from the bible.

Human are created in God's image and one of the things that goes with that is "freewill" and a rational mind that makes rational decisions and have the capacity to act accordingly.

It is a very stupid thing to say that Yahweh created two kids, one predestined to be a doctor and one predestined to be a thief and he at the same time said he will "reward them according to their did".

whose did?

Where they not predestined?

The guy that was predestined to be a thief cannot do otherwise. Pure absurdity!

Rather, Yahweh says, he has put life and death befor all, but pleaded, chose life so that you will live. = freewill and no predestination.

But he knows the way of life and the way of death.
Peace.

This is all good and fine in some ways, but this is issue is settled in a simpler way. With simple yes/nos

Can yahweh tell you with exact certainty everything about you 24 hours?
Can he be wrong?

Note, if you're saying he can know if he wants to, but chooses not to, it would mean he's not omniscient as far as dictionary standard meaning of the word is concerned, which is simply; knowing every single thing.

And regardless, the situation is still untenable for a variety of reasons (there's the butterfly effect, cascading changes for instance). The simplest one would be, what of his own actions? If he does not know his own future actions, how does he know he would not change his mind and interfere with your fate? He could tell where you're going to be and be completely honest and sure about it, but as he does not know if he'll change his mind, he cannot tell you with complete certainty where you would be at the allotted time. In essence, the only way he can be completely capable of telling you what the actual future would be, what choices or path will become the real one(s), is if he know every single action that he himself is ever going to take, voiding his own free will. And by knowing every single action he is going to take, considering his omnipresence, or just the fact that he is supposedly involved with all of us, that means our actions have been determined as well.

Reyginus: What is the proof that there was a big b.ang in the first? Do you only use an experiement to test predictions and effects?

That is how you test any theory. Logical evidence to back up the empirical is good as well. Big ban.g has both.

Random: The big ban.g occured, that is a fact. Just like say rain, if it is raining there must have been a way rain was formed. Same thing with the big ba.ng, we can see various effects and deduce so and so are happening or happened that lead to this. With rain for instance we could say pressure changes led to the excess moisture in the atmosphere an thus rain. We can then make predictions to test the theory, so assuming we'd never come across lightning before, we could say if so and so conditions arise then lightning should strike. We then go out and try to create or find these conditions, if we do find lightning then lo and behold, our theory is very likely correct.

This is where things may get a little muddled up, our theory need not be completely accurate or know certain details, like the cause. This does not mean it is wrong though, it means it's simply not complete. As time goes on we work on it and improve it, bit by bit. Newton's theory of gravitation for instance is not wrong, he never claimed to know what caused gravitation or some details about how it works. Even today, it is the default theory used for most day to calculations as using general relativity, which is more accurate, is a lot more complicated and on such small scales as found in your day to day activities the differences between results from the 2 theories are so minute it would be silly to use gr. Anyways, the point is this, newton's theory is not wrong, it's just not complete. General relativity is an improvement on it, and in fact as gr is not complete either there will come a time when a more accurate theory will improve on it, and that won't make gr wrong either.

With the big ba.ng, proof is everywhere, it undoubtedly occurred. What we do not know are some of the details related to how, like what caused it. That does not mean we accept it on faith, it just means some of the details need work, and with time it will be improved.

Reyginus: That is not the problem. Let me make it simple: is there any scientific experiment to prove the big b.ang?

What do you mean? To recreate the big b.ang or to test its predictions and effects?

On another note, the whole article has a rather poor or biased understanding of the scientific method and effective theories. There's just too much wrong in there that it would take too long to tackle. Anyone who has problems with it should just google 'scientific method'