Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373762 > unrolled thread

How Did God Create The Universe?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-12 08:10 -0800
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 10:17 -0600
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-01-12 10:37 -0600
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 20:14 -0800
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:48 -0800
          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 08:01 -0800
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-14 11:47 -0800
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-01-12 17:36 +0100
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-01-12 17:25 +0000
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? "walkslaone" <no@one.here> - 2016-01-12 12:24 -0600
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-01-13 05:00 -0800
          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2016-01-13 13:53 -0600
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-01-15 08:44 -0500
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 08:43 -0800
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-01-12 12:31 -0600
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 -0800
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 04:33 -0800
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 05:22 -0800
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 06:45 -0800
          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 07:08 -0800
            Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 08:43 -0800
              Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 09:52 -0800
                Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 -0800
                  Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 10:19 -0800
                    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 10:35 -0800
                      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 10:51 -0800
                        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:08 -0800
                          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:25 -0800
                            Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:31 -0800
                              Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:40 -0800
                                Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:55 -0800
                                  Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:58 -0800
                                    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 12:07 -0800
                                      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 12:27 -0800
                                        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 13:03 -0800
                                          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 13:16 -0800
                                            Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 13:33 -0800
                                              Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 13:47 -0800
                                                Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 00:25 +0000
                                                Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 19:38 -0800
                                                  Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:48 -0800
                                                    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 05:12 -0800
                                                    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:44 -0800
                                                      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:54 -0800
                    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-13 19:46 +0100
            Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 08:49 -0800
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 11:07 +1100
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:17 -0500
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 16:23 +1100
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 00:32 +0000
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 00:34 +0000
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 00:44 +0000
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-14 12:51 +1100
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 18:37 -0800
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-01-14 04:49 -0700
          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-14 11:49 -0800
          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-01-15 00:58 -0600
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 16:27 +1100
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-13 22:21 -0800
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-13 22:09 -0800
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-13 22:40 -0800
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-13 22:49 -0800
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-14 12:12 -0800
          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 19:41 -0800
          Re: How Did God Create The Universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-14 22:12 -0800
            Re: How Did God Create The Universe? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 08:17 -0800
    Re: How Did God Create The Universe? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 08:09 -0800
      Re: How Did God Create The Universe? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 08:18 -0800
        Re: How Did God Create The Universe? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 08:36 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#373821

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:45:36 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:22:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 5:33:59 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > Which God? Oh your God. That one doesn't exist any more than any of
> > > the others. Your "question" contains a false statement.
> > 
> > The problem I see is that everyone is making assumptions about what God
> > is and what He can do....
> 
> > So the answer to your question is, THAT "God."
> > 
> > Gary
> 
> Nope, yours doesn't either.

Thanks for deleting my whole argument and then making a nebulous claim.

> The wrong assumption you are making is that absolutely ludicrous and
> insane proposition that Gods exist,

I was making the assumption that civilizations exist that are millions
of years more advanced than we are.  To deny THAT assumption is insane.

> or even worse that one and only one does.

I didn't make that claim, now did I, insane one.

> This sort of thing is is why we call you the idiot masses.

Your behavior brands you as the real idiot here, and one with vaunting
arrogance.  To believe that we are alone in the universe is ludicrous,
and to believe that other civilizations are at our level or close to it
is insane.  And to label those who accept rational thinking as idiots
is ad hominem maliciousness.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373825

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > Nope, yours doesn't either.

> Thanks for deleting my whole argument and then making a nebulous claim.
> 
> > The wrong assumption you are making is that absolutely ludicrous and
> > insane proposition that Gods exist,or even worse that one and only one does.
> 
> I didn't make that claim, now did I, insane one.

Whats so hard for you to understand about yours doesn't exist any more than any of the others? Yep, idiot masses. And yes you did make that claim otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against my reaction to the insane claim that one of the Gods made the universe. Oh wait, even more insane, that there would be only one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373830

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:43:28 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> Whats so hard for you to understand about yours doesn't exist any more
> than any of the others?

First of all, the "God" I describe is not mine.  What is it about a very
advanced civilization that your arrogance can't wrap your tiny brain
around?

> Yep, idiot masses.  And yes you did make that claim otherwise you
> wouldn't be arguing against my reaction to the insane claim that one
> of the Gods made the universe.

I made NONE of those claims that you pulled out of your read-only-memory
brain.

> Oh wait, even more insane, that there would be only one.

Once again you refuse to understand what I wrote.  What is it about an
"advanced civilization" that makes you nonsensically believe I'm talking
about only one?

> Oh and by the way, what little we have figured out about the universe
> shows us that Gods can't exist
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQvf3-mQoY

Yes, I'm well aware of your argument concerning QM, although your meandering
explanation with weird head wobbles and pot-induced drowsy tone is quite
unfortunate.

What you have done is put up a straw man which in no way conforms with
what I described.  God's "omniscience" is typical of many religions, but
what in the world makes you believe that a very advanced civilization
would have that characteristic?

And, BTW, the Judeo-Christian God is an emergent property of the universe
as demonstrated by their own scriptures.  Present day Judaism and
Christianity "often" (as you say) agrees with your definition, but what
in the world makes you believe that "often" means "always"?

I had some conversations (many years ago) with a self-described atheist
who claimed that only one who has studied the subject extensively could
claim that title.  IMHO, those who assert there is no God have not done
their homework.  Physics has added much to our knowledge in the last
half century.  BTW, I have an MS in physics, too, and I have continued
to study astrophysics, cosmology, relativity and QM.  Again, IMHO, you
have put God in a box and have arrogantly refused to look outside of
the box.

> and no yours doesn't any more than any of the others.

"When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new." - Dalai Lama

"There may be millions of inhabited worlds circling other suns, harboring
beings who to us would seem godlike, with civilizations and cultures
beyond our wildest dreams." -- Arthur C. Clarke

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do."
-- Benjamin Franklin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373831

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 10:52:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > than any of the others?
> 
> First of all, the "God" I describe is not mine. 

Liar. 

> I made NONE of those claims that you pulled out of your read-only-memory
> brain.

Liar.

> Yes, I'm well aware of your argument concerning QM, although your meandering
> explanation with weird head wobbles and pot-induced drowsy tone is quite
> unfortunate.

Multiple liar. Since I have never done an illegal drug in my life especially, you should apologize now and bow out. Liable is illegal by the way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373834

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:03:29 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 10:52:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> > > than any of the others?
> > 
> > First of all, the "God" I describe is not mine. 
> 
> Liar. 
> 
> > I made NONE of those claims that you pulled out of your read-only-memory
> > brain.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> > Yes, I'm well aware of your argument concerning QM, although your meandering
> > explanation with weird head wobbles and pot-induced drowsy tone is quite
> > unfortunate.
> 
> Multiple liar. Since I have never done an illegal drug in my life

Then you must have a mental problem.

> especially, you should apologize now and bow out.

Not until YOU apologize for calling me a liar, which demonstrates that
you are arrogant and have problems understanding what you read.  When
you read certain phrases you jump to unwarranted conclusions.

> Liable is illegal by the way.

What?  Being accountable is illegal?  Did you mean libel? -)

If so, then YOU are wrong.  I merely expressed my opinion.  So now you
are against free speech?

What you are doing is attempting to hamper the free exchange of information.
Apparently, you are threatened when anyone expresses a view that contradicts
your narrow-minded opinion.  That's too bad.

"Discussion is always better than argument, because argument is to
find WHO is right and discussion is to find WHAT is right." - Anon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373836

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:19:05 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
 
> > Multiple liar. Since I have never done an illegal drug in my life
> 
> Then you must have a mental problem.

So you don't have a valid argument and continue with false accusations. You already lost idiot. 

> > especially, you should apologize now and bow out.
> 
> Not until YOU apologize for calling me a liar, 

why? You lied about me being on pot. Never done it nor any illegal drug in my life. Your false accusations in the place of a rational argument already lost you the argument. 

>  So now you
> are against free speech?

Your libel isn't covered under free speech. Its illegal criminal scumbag.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373841

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:35:20 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:19:05 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > > Multiple liar. Since I have never done an illegal drug in my life
> > 
> > Then you must have a mental problem.
> 
> So you don't have a valid argument and continue with false accusations.

Just my opinion from observing your behavior.

> You already lost idiot. 

So you continue with your defamatory baloney.

> > > especially, you should apologize now and bow out.
> > 
> > Not until YOU apologize for calling me a liar, 
> 
> why? You lied about me being on pot.

You see?  You DO have a mental problem.  I only expressed an opinion based
on your behavior.

> Never done it nor any illegal drug in my life. Your false accusations
> in the place of a rational argument already lost you the argument. 

YOU are the one that brought this down from a discussion to personal
attacks.  Your very first response to my DISCUSSION was to call me an
idiot:

"Nope, yours doesn't either. The wrong assumption you are making is that
absolutely ludicrous and insane proposition that Gods exist, or even
worse that one and only one does. This sort of thing is is why we call
you the idiot masses."

Your behavior was reprehensible right from the first.  Even more so when
you stalked me on another thread.

> >  So now you are against free speech?
> 
> Your libel isn't covered under free speech. Its illegal criminal scumbag.

Oh wow!  You must have OCD to continue this false diatribe.  Is that
your mental problem?  I suggest you take a few deep breaths and use
your brain instead of venting on innocent folk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373843

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:51:59 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Oh wow!  You must have OCD ...

So first you accuse me of pot use then something mental, now ocd all because you lost the argument with your utterly idiotic insane proposition that Gods exist. And you wonder why we call you the idiot masses?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373850

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:08:44 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:51:59 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> > Oh wow!  You must have OCD ...
> 
> So first you accuse me of pot use then something mental, now ocd all
> because you lost the argument with your utterly idiotic insane proposition
> that Gods exist. And you wonder why we call you the idiot masses?

And you wonder why I try to explain your bizarre behavior?  It IS
bizarre, you know.

So let's talk about the real subject here which you have never addressed,
preferring to denigrate rather than discuss.

Do you claim it is not possible for other civilizations to exist in our
galaxy?

Do you claim that none could be more advanced than we are?

Do you claim that no civilization can be millions of years more
advanced than we are in a galaxy twice as old as our planet is?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373851

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> And you wonder why I try to explain your bizarre behavior?  ...

So you continue on with how my behavior is bizarre since you don't have any argument against my pro science position. As such, you lost the argument. Your Gods don't exist any more than any of the others. Get over it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373852

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:31:14 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > And you wonder why I try to explain your bizarre behavior?  ...
> 
> So you continue on with how my behavior is bizarre since you don't have
> any argument against my pro science position.

Your "pro-science" position is based on a straw man argument that does
not apply in any way to my thesis.

> As such, you lost the argument. Your Gods don't exist any more than any
> of the others. Get over it.

You are acting like a compulsive fool, and you haven't answered any of
the three questions I asked.  So YOU are the one that lost the argument
because you REFUSE to take them on.  Why is that?  Are you afraid it
will tear your assertions to shreds?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373855

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:40:36 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> You are acting like a compulsive ...

So I utterly invalidated your idiotic insane proposition that Gods exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQvf3-mQoY
And your response is a libel accusation of pot use, then mental problems then ocd and now compulsive...
So you lost the argument in total. Get over it. Yes, we see now why idiot masses is the correct term for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373857

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:40:36 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > You are acting like a compulsive ...
> 
> So I utterly invalidated your idiotic insane proposition that Gods exist

You are either delusional or a liar.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQvf3-mQoY
> And your response is a libel accusation of pot use, then mental problems
> then ocd and now compulsive...
> So you lost the argument in total. Get over it. Yes, we see now why
> idiot masses is the correct term for you.

So you compulsively refuse to answer the questions.  Are you autistic, too?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373859

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:58:58 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> autistic, too?...

So I utterly invalidated your idiotic insane proposition that Gods exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQvf3-mQoY
And your response is a libel accusation of pot use, then mental problems then ocd then compulsive, then autistic...
So you lost the argument in total. Get over it. Yes, we see now why idiot masses is the correct term for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373860

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:07:30 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:58:58 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> > autistic, too?...
> 
> So I utterly invalidated your idiotic insane proposition that Gods exist
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQvf3-mQoY

You are regurgitating your refuted assertion.  Why are you being so
dishonestly belligerent?

> And your response is a libel accusation of pot use, then mental problems
> then ocd then compulsive, then autistic...

Opinions are not libel, regurgitating dishonest one.

> So you lost the argument in total. Get over it. Yes, we see now why idiot
> masses is the correct term for you.

We?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket? :-)  You LOST the argument long
ago when YOU went on the attack with ad hominem baloney.  THAT is how
dishonest folk approach a discussion.  And you continue to hurl insults
and denigrations.  That makes you no better than the many kooks that
infest this group.  You appear to be basically dishonest because of
your refusal to answer my three questions.  Now why would that be?  Is it
because they demolish your whole house of cards?

Here they are in case your mental problems have caused you to forget them:

Do you claim it is not possible for other civilizations to exist in our 
galaxy? 

Do you claim that none could be more advanced than we are? 

Do you claim that no civilization can be millions of years more 
advanced than we are in a galaxy twice as old as our planet is?

What's the matter?  Afraid to engage in a rational discussion.  With
every post, it becomes clearer that your assertion is a house of cards.

Put up or shut up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373862

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:28:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:...

> Do you claim that no civilization can be millions of years more 
> advanced than we are in a galaxy twice as old as our planet is?...

So I utterly invalidated your idiotic insane proposition that Gods exist and now you're rambling irrelevance about aliens. The discussion isn't about aliens. Its about a God. Aliens aren't omni anything and as such don't fit the definition and are utterly irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373863

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:28:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:...
> >
> > Do you claim that no civilization can be millions of years more 
> > advanced than we are in a galaxy twice as old as our planet is?...
> 
> So I utterly invalidated your idiotic insane proposition that Gods
> exist

No, you didn't.  Your belief that you did is delusional.

> and now you're rambling irrelevance about aliens.

Perhaps you've forgotten my first post to you:

"The problem I see is that everyone is making assumptions about what God 
is and what He can do.  Clarke's third law states, "Any sufficiently 
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" so what would be 
our response to the appearance of a REALLY advanced technology, one that 
is a billion years ahead of us?  We have lots of speculations about 
civilizations that are a few centuries ahead of us, but that is much less 
likely than there being really, really old ones.  We are Johnnie-come- 
lately even in our own galaxy, which has existed for twice as long as 
our little solar system. 

"So the answer to your question is, THAT 'God.'" 

What is it you don't understand that a civilization a billion years ahead
of us is quite probable?

> The discussion isn't about aliens.

Yes, it is.  Read what I wrote above.

> Its about a God. Aliens aren't omni anything and as such don't fit the
> definition and are utterly irrelevant.

Face it: it doesn't fit YOUR boxed-in definition of God because YOU
can't think outside your little box.  "A GOD has to be Omni" whatever
is just plain wrong.  Clarke had it right and YOU have it wrong.

"There may be millions of inhabited worlds circling other suns, harboring
beings who to us would seem godlike, with civilizations and cultures
beyond our wildest dreams." -- Arthur C. Clarke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373864

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> We have lots of speculations about 
> civilizations that are a few centuries ahead of us, but that is much less 
> likely than there being really, really old ones. ...

So I utterly invalidated your idiotic insane proposition that a God exists, and here you are rambling complete irrelevance about aliens. The topic isn't aliens. It doesn't matter how advanced. They aren't omni anything and as such don't fit the definition. You lost the argument. Get over it. Idiot masses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373865

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:33:54 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > We have lots of speculations about 
> > civilizations that are a few centuries ahead of us, but that is much less 
> > likely than there being really, really old ones. ...
> 
> [Completely irrelevant and false, regurgitated straw man baloney]

You have some of the characteristics of the kooks and cranks that infest
this board, one of them is believing that if you make the last post,
even if it is regurgitated nonsense, you win.  Another is repetition
makes nonsense valid.  You are behaving irrationally.  How come you
can't see that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373872

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> [Completely irrelevant and false, regurgitated straw man baloney]
> 
> You have some of the characteristics of the kooks and cranks that infest
> this board, one of them is believing that if you make the last post,
> even if it is regurgitated nonsense, you win. 

This soaUNDS pretty rational to me.

> Another is repetition

Rational again

> makes nonsense valid.  You are behaving irrationally.

You just contradict yourself. You need start thinking in Tensors. Then 
you'll understand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web