The Plausibility Argument (1 Viewer)

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

You talk about unbiased opinions? First, you are very much inclined to the far right of your little diagram. Second, the entire idea of what I'm posting here comes from a scientist who was an atheist untill his mid twenties. Because of certain theories and certain people he met, he shifted away from atheism into agnotisticism. He studied the subject even more throrughly and finally concluded that there is a god. Now, this is only one person. I am not saying this person is right or wring. But since you are so keen in listening to unbiased opinions, here is a person(Francis Collins) among many people I can name that have converted from atheis to theism on the very basis of logic.

If you fail to see the logic, I don't care to be quite honest. I just posted this thread in response to a point of view Martin posted a couple of months back. I don't care whether you are a deist, atheist, theist, or in your case "I don't give a fuck". I am posting an idea or a theory, you can either understand it or not. If you don't like it, kindly shut the fuck up and go post in another thread. It's not like I am making personal phone calls to your mother's house asking for you. You chose to post in this thread, either respect one's opinion or fuck off.

Another thing, just clear up on something you rambled on about earlier. Just another common logical error I'm used to by some people here. You say that I'm an extreme Christian, while this is not true, I am willing to accept this for the sake of argument. Please oh masterful Burke, explain to me what fucking difference it makes if it was me who proposed this theory or simply someone that had no inclination to theism whatsoever. A theory is a theory, it is an idea, it does not fucking matter who talks about it or who suggests it, the significance of it is is it's rationality and it's philosophical validity. Argue against the theory, do not argue against me you dumb fuck.

1) As I've always said, i don't read posts longer than 10 lines. As I've not read any post in this thread over 10 lines.

2) Watch your mouth, I am better than you and can use foul language.

3) As in the first part, don't call me a chink, I'm White, not Yellow.

4) Shut the fuck up.

That's flattering Andy, I guess.



He's a clown, plain and simple.

I'm a clown?

I am damn sure that I could noogie you and give you a Polish Bike Ride until you scream.


Plus, I actually agree with you, but at least I like Jews and you hate them, which makes me better.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

1) As I've always said, i don't read posts longer than 10 lines. As I've not read any post in this thread over 10 lines.

2) Watch your mouth, I am better than you and can use foul language.

3) As in the first part, don't call me a chink, I'm White, not Yellow.

4) Shut the fuck up.

I'm a clown?

I am damn sure that I could noogie you and give you a Polish Bike Ride until you scream.


Plus, I actually agree with you, but at least I like Jews and you hate them, which makes me better.

I hate clowns, not jews or gays, just clowns.

 

[rounder]

1) As I've always said, i don't read posts longer than 10 lines. As I've not read any post in this thread over 10 lines.

That's exactly the problem. 98% of the people who refute the theory I posted haven't even read the first page. It's good someone is finally honest about it.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

I've always said that.

 

[rounder]

Good for you.

 

[Bjerknes]

Occam's Razor is one of those things that sounds meaningful to the uninitiated on a superficial level, but its use typically indicates someone who lacks logical legs to stand on.

Kind of like an English lit major who stumbles on a physics conference and says "string theory" every other sentence in order to try to sound knowledgeable.

In all honesty, it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. But then again, I've been drilled so much in physics and meteorology that whenever I choose the simplest line of thinking on an exam, I usually bomb it.

You believe in the theory of the Big Bang? Is it not true that such a theory would largely suggest the existence of god? Let's say the Big Bang exists, and it is a widely accepted theory among scientists, one must consider what must have come before the Big Bang, If the Big Bang was what created the universe and was in fact the primary existence in time and space meaning that nothing came before it, nothing at all preceeded it. Does this not logically suggest that a supernatural force outside the boundaries of space and time must have initiated the Big Bang?

No, it doesn't. Before the big bang, there must have been other physical attributes of space that created the change necessary to support various systems. As many have already mentioned, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with any almighty Deity. It actually seems quite strange someone would relate the Big Bang Theory with the existence of God, making it seem like He strapped a few sticks of dynamite together with a clock, and let the thing tick down to detonation. Why? Well, it pretty much contradicts the whole Seven Days Biblical Scripture references that many followers of religion have faith upon. If God simply let the bomb explode, that means original sin is a bust along with Adam and Eve. Therefore, it's all a bunch of hogwash that loses credibility like words written down on some newly found piece of paper.

It seems like you're trying to use the arguments of science to support your views. Be advised, that tactic is really playing into the hands of those who actually study the subject.

 

[rounder]

No, it doesn't. Before the big bang, there must have been other physical attributes of space that created the change necessary to support various systems. As many have already mentioned, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with any almighty Deity. It actually seems quite strange someone would relate the Big Bang Theory with the existence of God, making it seem like He strapped a few sticks of dynamite together with a clock, and let the thing tick down to detonation. Why? Well, it pretty much contradicts the whole Seven Days Biblical Scripture references that many followers of religion have faith upon. If God simply let the bomb explode, that means original sin is a bust along with Adam and Eve. Therefore, it's all a bunch of hogwash that loses credibility like words written down on some newly found piece of paper.

It seems like you're trying to use the arguments of science to support your views. Be advised, that tactic is really playing into the hands of those who actually study the subject.

1st bold

Where did they orginate from? How did these physical attributes come to being in the first place. These attributes you speak of are part of time, they are part of the first dimension of time, are they not? Therefore, this suggests that for their existence to even be possible, there must have been a supernatural force or natural force outside the limits and boundaries of time and space, a different dimesion if you will.

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of it, not the biblical aspect. Leave the bible out of it, also note that 7 days you speak of does not necassarilly mean 24*7 hours, the bible even states that god can make a day into 1000 years and 1 year into 1000 days.

Second bold.
You do know that Albert Einstein related that with the existence of an almighty deity right? It actually does not seem strange at all.

Third bold.

The bible distictly describes the creation of the universe by god as a flash of light. Does a flash of light not suggest an explosion so to speak? so in essence, yes, God is who put forth this explosion. It did not appear out of absolute nothingness. And as I explained in the first place, this does seem like the most plausible theory.


Again, these are not my arguments. I simply see the reason behind these arguments, I thought the logic was very defensible and it simply made sense philosphically. And believe me, the individuals who came up with such conclusions that I speak of are far more advanced than anyone here in the field of physics and cosmology.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Dude, shut up.

 

[rounder]

Dude, shut up.

:burke:

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Yep, and shut up.

 

[rounder]

No.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

No, shut up.

 

[rounder]

No. You shut up you arrogant, obnoxious, unintelligent, annoying, stupid, pointless, meanigless, insignificant, ignorant shitfaced imbecile.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Dude, shut up.

 

[rounder]

Did not see that coming. go make yourself useful and join a circus, clown.

 

[rounder]

Ok.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Dude, shut up.

 

[rounder]

No. You shut up you arrogant, obnoxious, unintelligent, annoying, stupid, pointless, meanigless, insignificant, ignorant shitfaced imbecile.

 

[Bjerknes]

1st bold

Where did they orginate from? How did these physical attributes come to being in the first place. These attributes you speak of are part of time, they are part of the first dimension of time, are they not? Therefore, this suggests that for their existence to even be possible, there must have been a supernatural force or natural force outside the limits and boundaries of time and space, a different dimesion if you will.

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of it, not the biblical aspect. Leave the bible out of it, also note that 7 days you speak of does not necassarilly mean 24*7 hours, the bible even states that god can make a day into 1000 years and 1 year into 1000 days.

Second bold.
You do know that Albert Einstein related that with the existence of an almighty deity right? It actually does not seem strange at all.

Third bold.

The bible distictly describes the creation of the universe by god as a flash of light. Does a flash of light not suggest an explosion so to speak? so in essence, yes, God is who put forth this explosion. It did not appear out of absolute nothingness. And as I explained in the first place, this does seem like the most plausible theory.


Again, these are not my arguments. I simply see the reason behind these arguments, I thought the logic was very defensible and it simply made sense philosphically. And believe me, the individuals who came up with such conclusions that I speak of are far more advanced than anyone here in the field of physics and cosmology.

1. No, again, they don't. One physical system can lead to the birth of another. That's why if you mix certain chemicals together, randomly or not, they become another substance and do not have the same composition. Ever taken a chemistry course?

2. No, it does seem strange, because the arguments you are using contradict everything written in the Bible, which totally discredits everything Christianity "stands" upon. Christians only have the written words of man to go upon.

3. That flash of light was accompanied by seven days, according to the Bible. So this flash of light lasted for seven earth days, or seven space days? Who wrote it down, Neil Armstrong? Come on, why do people of "faith" cannot seem to get their stories straight? Either God created the bomb or he manually took his time to create the various physical constants we have to deal with here on earth... while Adam and Eve fucked around on this new planet and condemned all of us to eternal hell? So many loopholes in these stories I feel like I'm an investment banker.

 

[rounder]

1. No, again, they don't. One physical system can lead to the birth of another. That's why if you mix certain chemicals together, randomly or not, they become another substance and do not have the same composition. Ever taken a chemistry course?

2. No, it does seem strange, because the arguments you are using contradict everything written in the Bible, which totally discredits everything Christianity "stands" upon. Christians only have the written words of man to go upon.

3. That flash of light was accompanied by seven days, according to the Bible. So this flash of light lasted for seven earth days, or seven space days? Who wrote it down, Neil Armstrong? Come on, why do people of "faith" cannot seem to get their stories straight? Either God created the bomb or he manually took his time to create the various physical constants we have to deal with here on earth... while Adam and Eve fucked around on this new planet and condemned all of us to eternal hell? So many loopholes in these stories I feel like I'm an investment banker.

They only logical counterargument to creationism in that respect is taking the universe as inifinity. Meaning that there was no beggining and there shall be no end. The Big Bang means that the universe in fact had a beggining and this does have religious implications. Clearly, you will not be convinced so I'm willing to give up on that argument not because it is incorrect, but because if you have failed to get the idea the first 200000000 times then it is useless to proceed with it.

Again, Andy, I am considering this not as a Christian but as a nuetral. I am just considering the situaltion metaphysically. The scripture does not exactly suggest what Science implies but even so, physicians are actually approaching theological ideas rather than stray away from them with time. Here is a quote to show you what I mean. A distiniguished physicist, Freeman Dyson, concludes, "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming".

And Anzo Penzia, the Nobel prize winning scientist who codiscovered the cosmic microwave background raadiation that provided strong supprtfor the Big Bang in the furst place, states, "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothng to go on but the five Books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole".