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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416722 > unrolled thread

Re: God doesn't believe in atheist

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-19 21:55 -0700
    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-20 07:26 -0700
      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-21 14:36 -0700
    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-20 10:45 -0700
      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-20 13:07 -0700
    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-21 14:43 -0700
      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-21 15:00 -0700
        Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 11:29 -0700
          Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 22:41 -0700
            Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 10:31 -0700
              Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 10:36 -0700
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 11:00 -0700
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-30 22:03 -0700
              Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 12:15 -0700
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:37 -0700
                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 00:04 -0700
                    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 14:07 -0700
                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist tesla sTinker <truecatholicstaff@truecarpentry.org> - 2017-05-07 17:38 -0700
                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 11:15 -0700
                        Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 23:24 -0700
                          Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-09 23:32 -0700
                            Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 12:56 -0700
                              Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 13:02 -0700
                              Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 12:22 -0700
                                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 15:04 -0700
                                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 22:50 -0700
                                    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 10:44 -0700
                                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:17 -0700
                                        Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:29 -0700
                                        Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-24 11:08 -0700
                                          Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 11:27 -0700
                                          Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-24 13:37 -0700
                                            Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-24 13:49 -0700
                                              Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-24 17:52 -0700
                                    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-20 11:02 -0700
                                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-20 12:01 -0700
                                        Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-20 13:07 -0700
                                          Re: God doesn't believe in atheist "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-20 14:50 -0700
                                            Re: God doesn't believe in atheist "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-20 15:04 -0700
                              Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-20 11:21 -0700
                                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-20 11:53 -0700
                                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-24 10:41 -0700
                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-20 11:10 -0700
                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist TrumpenFuehrer <HeilTrumpenFuehrer@gop.net> - 2017-05-05 21:57 +0000
              Re: God doesn't believe in atheist SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2017-04-30 08:13 -0400
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +1000
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-30 12:24 +0000
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 09:12 -0700
                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-30 16:43 +0000
                    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 09:57 -0700
                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-30 17:46 +0000
                        Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-30 17:50 +0000
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-30 20:56 +0200
                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-30 19:05 +0000
                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-30 12:34 -0700
                    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-30 12:58 -0700
                    Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-30 22:46 +0200
                      Tricorder (was: God doesn't believe in atheist) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-30 23:00 +0200
                        Re: Tricorder (was: God doesn't believe in atheist) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-30 16:24 -0700
                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-30 16:21 -0700
                      Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-04-30 21:14 -0600
                        Re: God doesn't believe in atheist Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-01 05:47 +0200
                  Re: God doesn't believe in atheist "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-01 08:38 +0100
                Re: God doesn't believe in atheist The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-30 12:41 -0700

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

#420030

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB5OMysJyZk
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4bYfiQ0_pQ
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7iBQpAaldk
> > >
> > > Now you have an idea that each of yous are just an...illustration.
> > >
> > > That's a lot of illustrations walking around your neighborhood...
> > >
> > > From head to toe...just an illustration.
> > >
> > > You're as real as Betty Boop.
> >
> > There are certaintly a lot of copies of the original illustrations on earth, probably around 3 billion copies of girls alone.
> >
> > (if you get a chance tell your girfriend to take off her clothes and look at the illustration, or go to a strip club)
> >
> > but there is only One Earth in the entire universe...
> >
> > looking for another earth is not going to work...it's stupid.
> >
> > What you need to do is make a copy and place it between here and our moon.
> >
> > and then build a rocket and get off my fuckin planet!
> >
> 
> Now, if I start a business
> 
> and I want to build my own earth..
> 
> up there somewhere..
> 
> that earth would legally
> 
> belong to me since
> 
> there are no
> 
> laws against it
> 
> according to
> 
> the Outer Space Treaty.
> 
> the Outer Space Treaty does not pertain to people starting a business in space, only countries are not allowed to own another planet.
> 
> So...there are certain people I will not allow on my earth.
> 
> I don't think I need to list them, yous knows whos yous ares.



Now you ask, How do I intend to make another earth? It's very simple...i just throw a tree up in space.

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

#420519

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB5OMysJyZk
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4bYfiQ0_pQ
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7iBQpAaldk
> > > >
> > > > Now you have an idea that each of yous are just an...illustration.
> > > >
> > > > That's a lot of illustrations walking around your neighborhood...
> > > >
> > > > From head to toe...just an illustration.
> > > >
> > > > You're as real as Betty Boop.
> > >
> > > There are certaintly a lot of copies of the original illustrations on earth, probably around 3 billion copies of girls alone.
> > >
> > > (if you get a chance tell your girfriend to take off her clothes and look at the illustration, or go to a strip club)
> > >
> > > but there is only One Earth in the entire universe...
> > >
> > > looking for another earth is not going to work...it's stupid.
> > >
> > > What you need to do is make a copy and place it between here and our moon.
> > >
> > > and then build a rocket and get off my fuckin planet!
> > >
> >
> > Now, if I start a business
> >
> > and I want to build my own earth..
> >
> > up there somewhere..
> >
> > that earth would legally
> >
> > belong to me since
> >
> > there are no
> >
> > laws against it
> >
> > according to
> >
> > the Outer Space Treaty.
> >
> > the Outer Space Treaty does not pertain to people starting a business in space, only countries are not allowed to own another planet.
> >
> > So...there are certain people I will not allow on my earth.
> >
> > I don't think I need to list them, yous knows whos yous ares.
> 
> Now you ask, How do I intend to make another earth? It's very simple...i just throw a tree up in space.


i used to live near a rubber band factory
so I would take one sheet of newspaper
crush it into a ball and tie
rubberbands around it untill
it it was formed to a
rubberball.

the newspaper comes from a tree..
the rubber comes from a tree.

throw that ball into space...


Do you know what would happen????

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

#420028

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Saint Else Ware wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 1:31:51 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > But, if you want to know How did God created the heavens and the
> > > > > > earth...it's very simple...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He simply took out his ...pen.
> > > > >
> > > > > i thought he did something like convert some kind of energy into what we call matter somehow ...
> > > > >
> > > > > at some viewpoint or perspective, they would be the same anyway ...
> > > >
> > > > all that stuff is inside the pen...the ink if you will,
> > > >
> > > > then he drew a tree.
> > > >
> > > > one tree
> > > >
> > > > one earth
> > >
> > > Now, everybody knows there is only one earth...(except NASA with their daily fake science news)
> > >
> > > In order for there to be another Earth, you need to ..clone a earth and put it between here and the moon.
> > >
> > > You can call it earth2 or female earth.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > one chicken
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > and one man.
> > >
> > > Now when God took out his pen and drew a tree, and a man...it's just..
> > >
> > > it's just an ...illustration.
> > >
> > > It isn't real. It's...YOU are just an...illustration.
> > >
> > > Strange how all these 'illustration' are under a illusion they are real...
> > >
> > > maybe...not so strange...
> > >
> > > otherwise She wouldn't fall for all your nonsence..
> >
> > Of course there is one problem of how do you make an earth from our own
> > earth...i haven't had time to come up with an answer...i don't read
> > science fiction books.
> 
> Now, God made man in his own image...
> 
> He looked in the mirror, took out His pen...and he drew a picture of Himself!



Now, if you go outside..and see people..

you can see the 'illustrations' walking, talking, running..

If you look at one illustration from head to toe, you can see each illustration is individual...like
if they just jumped out of an ink bottle.

Once you can see each illustration as individual illustrations..

from head to toe (you must look at the top of the head to the toe)..

then...you may begin to see...they are not...people or humans.


The illustrations are in fact...

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

#418301

The Starmaker wrote

> The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> Saint Else Ware wrote:
>> >
>> > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 1:31:51 PM UTC-4, The
>> > Starmaker wrote: 
>> >
>> > > But, if you want to know How did God created the heavens
>> > > and the earth...it's very simple...
>> > >
>> > > He simply took out his ...pen.
>> >
>> > i thought he did something like convert some kind of
>> > energy into what we call matter somehow ... 
>> >
>> > at some viewpoint or perspective, they would be the same
>> > anyway ... 
>> 
>> all that stuff is inside the pen...the ink if you will,
>> 
>> then he drew a tree.
>> 
>> one tree
>> 
>> one earth
> 
> 
> Now, everybody knows there is only one earth...(except NASA
> with their daily fake science news) 

God doesn't believe in Christians because they aren't mentioned 
anywhere in the Bible.   He appears to really dig Jewish people.

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

#417703

Amazing that some fools still believe in god, creation and all the BS
that goes with it ! If the univwrse had a begining, then what was a
day before ? Also, absolutely ridiculous that there is god that
oversees everything. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for
anything to transverse just one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so
god would have to be a very slow thinker !

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

#417704

On 30/04/2017 10:13 PM, SteveGG wrote:
> Amazing that some fools still believe in god, creation and all the BS
> that goes with it ! If the univwrse had a begining, then what was a
> day before ?


'Day before' is a human construct.  It means nothing in absolute terms.



> Also, absolutely ridiculous that there is god that
> oversees everything. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for
> anything to transverse just one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so
> god would have to be a very slow thinker !
>


Where you're going wrong is assuming we as humans have any fucking idea 
about anything.  We are limited by being human.  The universe may not 
even exist.  In fact you may be the only 'person' on the planet & 
everything else you experience/sense is through your brain.

I have no doubt our human understanding of the universe we sense around 
us is less than 0.0000000000000001% of what is really out there.

No doubt at all.

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

#417705

SteveGG wrote:

> Amazing that some fools still believe in god, creation and all the BS
> that goes with it ! If the univwrse had a begining, then what was a day
> before ? Also, absolutely ridiculous that there is god that oversees
> everything. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for anything to
> transverse just one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so god would have
> to be a very slow thinker !

Each and every statement you made above strongly indicates that you are 
stupid. It would be a lie just by saying, that you are misinformed.

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

#417712

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 6:13:07 AM UTC-6, SteveGG wrote:
>
> Amazing that some fools still believe in god, creation and all the BS
> that goes with it ! If the univwrse had a begining, then what was a
> day before ? Also, absolutely ridiculous that there is god that
> oversees everything. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for
> anything to transverse just one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so
> god would have to be a very slow thinker !

You seem to be equating belief in God with a 6000-year-old universe, but
is merely a straw man argument.  Many, if not most, people who believe
in God agree with the scientific evidence.

Second,and another straw man case, is that you haven't defined what you
mean by "God," even though you have made many implicit assumptions about
Him which are likely just plain wrong.

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

#417713

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> You seem to be equating belief in God with a 6000-year-old universe, but
> is merely a straw man argument.  Many, if not most, people who believe
> in God agree with the scientific evidence.

Bullshit. I mean, incorrect. Firstly, you have no proofs below that date. 
All the "fossil records" you have are registered TODAY. Then a time travel 
into the past, with your body of today, is un-arguable, NOT possible.

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

#417715

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 10:43:10 AM UTC-6, The 'nymshifting troll wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> > You seem to be equating belief in God with a 6000-year-old universe, but
> > is merely a straw man argument.  Many, if not most, people who believe
> > in God agree with the scientific evidence.
> 
> Bullshit. I mean, incorrect. Firstly, you have no proofs below that date. 
> All the "fossil records" you have are registered TODAY. Then a time travel 
> into the past, with your body of today, is un-arguable, NOT possible.

"What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was
nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli[

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

#417717

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 10:43:10 AM UTC-6, The 'nymshifting troll
> wrote:
>>
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> 
>> > You seem to be equating belief in God with a 6000-year-old universe,
>> > but is merely a straw man argument.  Many, if not most, people who
>> > believe in God agree with the scientific evidence.
>> 
>> Bullshit. I mean, incorrect. Firstly, you have no proofs below that
>> date. All the "fossil records" you have are registered TODAY. Then a
>> time travel into the past, with your body of today, is un-arguable, NOT
>> possible.
> 
> "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was
> nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli[

I beg you to reconsider. You must be the only one not understanding the 
problematique. The proof for this is, that nobody else, apart from you, 
are replying saying that they did not. One more point for me. If you had 
been answered with something intelligible, then you had a point likewise. 
but you did not. Not my fault.

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

#417718

Himère Bezuinig wrote:

> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
>> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 10:43:10 AM UTC-6, The 'nymshifting troll
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> 
>>> > You seem to be equating belief in God with a 6000-year-old universe,
>>> > but is merely a straw man argument.  Many, if not most, people who
>>> > believe in God agree with the scientific evidence.
>>> 
>>> Bullshit. I mean, incorrect. Firstly, you have no proofs below that
>>> date. All the "fossil records" you have are registered TODAY. Then a
>>> time travel into the past, with your body of today, is un-arguable,
>>> NOT possible.
>> 
>> "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was
>> nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli[
> 
> I beg you to reconsider. You must be the only one not understanding the
> problematique. The proof for this is, that nobody else, apart from you,
> are replying saying that they did not. One more point for me. If you had
> been answered with something intelligible, then you had a point
> likewise.
> but you did not. Not my fault.

"answering" of course. I do apologise, for the scientists not 
understanding.

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

#417724

SteveGG amok-crossposted across 5(!) newsgroups without Followup-To:

> Amazing that some fools still believe in god, creation and all the BS
> that goes with it !

Amazing that you still have not learned to post properly.

> If the univwrse had a begining, then what was a day before ?

JFTR: The idea that the (our) universe had a beginning is not limited to 
religion and creationism at all.

There is a lot of observational *scientific* evidence that supports the Big 
Bang theory that concludes, from the general theory of relativity applied to 
our universe, that our universe *had* a beginning.

However, (real) science (cosmology) does not jump to the conclusion that 
therefore our universe was created, which would require it to have (had) a 
creator.  For all we know, our universe could have begun from “nothing”, 
i.e. quantum fluctuations in empty space could have produced our universe, 
and in fact any other universe.

As a result, the concept of a “day before” the (our) universe began, or more 
generally, a time before the Big Bang, is not well-defined.  Time itself 
began with (or, more precisely, shortly after) the Big Bang inasfar as
that, according to theory, causality breaks down before the Planck epoch.

As another result, there could be an infinite number of universes, our 
universe just being one of them in what has been coined “the multiverse”. 
(Hence my emphasis on “our”.  Scientific understanding has moved beyond
the point where we literally mean “universe” as “the only one” as per the 
original Latin.)

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing> p.

> Also, absolutely ridiculous that there is god that oversees everything.

Full ACK.

> It takes hundreds of thousands of years for anything to transverse just
> one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so god would have to be a very slow
> thinker !

Your logic is flawed because a lifeform that we, at our current stage of 
development, would accept as a deity, could have discovered laws of physics 
that we have not discovered yet.  Keep in mind:

  “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

    –Clarke’s third law

which can been rephrased as

  “Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is 
   indistinguishable from God.”

    –Shermer's last law

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws>

However, the existence of such a lifeform grows the more unlikely the more 
we develop our understanding of our universe.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#417725

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> However, (real) science (cosmology) does not jump to the conclusion that
> therefore our universe was created, which would require it to have (had)
> a creator.  For all we know, our universe could have begun from
> “nothing”, i.e. quantum fluctuations in empty space could have produced
> our universe, and in fact any other universe.

This is so poor written, not even material enough to state you are an 
idiot. Try again.

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

#417727

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> SteveGG amok-crossposted across 5(!) newsgroups without Followup-To:
> 
> > Amazing that some fools still believe in god, creation and all the BS
> > that goes with it !
> 
> Amazing that you still have not learned to post properly.
> 
> > If the univwrse had a begining, then what was a day before ?
> 
> JFTR: The idea that the (our) universe had a beginning is not limited to
> religion and creationism at all.
> 
> There is a lot of observational *scientific* evidence that supports the Big
> Bang theory that concludes, from the general theory of relativity applied to
> our universe, that our universe *had* a beginning.
> 
> However, (real) science (cosmology) does not jump to the conclusion that
> therefore our universe was created, which would require it to have (had) a
> creator.  For all we know, our universe could have begun from “nothing”,
> i.e. quantum fluctuations in empty space could have produced our universe,
> and in fact any other universe.
> 
> As a result, the concept of a “day before” the (our) universe began, or more
> generally, a time before the Big Bang, is not well-defined.  Time itself
> began with (or, more precisely, shortly after) the Big Bang inasfar as
> that, according to theory, causality breaks down before the Planck epoch.
> 
> As another result, there could be an infinite number of universes, our
> universe just being one of them in what has been coined “the multiverse”.
> (Hence my emphasis on “our”.  Scientific understanding has moved beyond
> the point where we literally mean “universe” as “the only one” as per the
> original Latin.)
> 
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing> p.
> 
> > Also, absolutely ridiculous that there is god that oversees everything.
> 
> Full ACK.
> 
> > It takes hundreds of thousands of years for anything to transverse just
> > one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so god would have to be a very slow
> > thinker !
> 
> Your logic is flawed because a lifeform that we, at our current stage of
> development, would accept as a deity, could have discovered laws of physics
> that we have not discovered yet.  Keep in mind:
> 
>   “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
> 
>     –Clarke’s third law
> 
> which can been rephrased as
> 
>   “Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is
>    indistinguishable from God.”
> 
>     –Shermer's last law
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws>
> 
> However, the existence of such a lifeform grows the more unlikely the more
> we develop our understanding of our universe.
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.




The guy with the pointed ears is quoting...science fiction writers!!! THAT'S INSANE!!!!


British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws


God had a dream...so he painted his dream.


He took out his pen and drew a tree.




Which is worse, quoting from the bible or quoting from a ...science fiction book????

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

#417729

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > SteveGG amok-crossposted across 5(!) newsgroups without Followup-To:
> >
> > > Amazing that some fools still believe in god, creation and all the BS
> > > that goes with it !
> >
> > Amazing that you still have not learned to post properly.
> >
> > > If the univwrse had a begining, then what was a day before ?
> >
> > JFTR: The idea that the (our) universe had a beginning is not limited to
> > religion and creationism at all.
> >
> > There is a lot of observational *scientific* evidence that supports the Big
> > Bang theory that concludes, from the general theory of relativity applied to
> > our universe, that our universe *had* a beginning.
> >
> > However, (real) science (cosmology) does not jump to the conclusion that
> > therefore our universe was created, which would require it to have (had) a
> > creator.  For all we know, our universe could have begun from “nothing”,
> > i.e. quantum fluctuations in empty space could have produced our universe,
> > and in fact any other universe.
> >
> > As a result, the concept of a “day before” the (our) universe began, or more
> > generally, a time before the Big Bang, is not well-defined.  Time itself
> > began with (or, more precisely, shortly after) the Big Bang inasfar as
> > that, according to theory, causality breaks down before the Planck epoch.
> >
> > As another result, there could be an infinite number of universes, our
> > universe just being one of them in what has been coined “the multiverse”.
> > (Hence my emphasis on “our”.  Scientific understanding has moved beyond
> > the point where we literally mean “universe” as “the only one” as per the
> > original Latin.)
> >
> > See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing> p.
> >
> > > Also, absolutely ridiculous that there is god that oversees everything.
> >
> > Full ACK.
> >
> > > It takes hundreds of thousands of years for anything to transverse just
> > > one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so god would have to be a very slow
> > > thinker !
> >
> > Your logic is flawed because a lifeform that we, at our current stage of
> > development, would accept as a deity, could have discovered laws of physics
> > that we have not discovered yet.  Keep in mind:
> >
> >   “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
> >
> >     –Clarke’s third law
> >
> > which can been rephrased as
> >
> >   “Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is
> >    indistinguishable from God.”
> >
> >     –Shermer's last law
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws>
> >
> > However, the existence of such a lifeform grows the more unlikely the more
> > we develop our understanding of our universe.
> >
> > --
> > PointedEars
> >
> > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> 
> The guy with the pointed ears is quoting...science fiction writers!!! THAT'S INSANE!!!!
> 
> British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
> 
> God had a dream...so he painted his dream.
> 
> He took out his pen and drew a tree.
> 
> Which is worse, quoting from the bible or quoting from a ...science fiction book????



Next, the guy with the pointed ears will be quoting...Star Trek! I wonder which character he'll quote¿


"Set Phasers To Stun"



"I'm Givin' Her All She's Got, Captain!"



"Highly Illogical..."




"Khaaannnn!"

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

#417730

The Starmaker wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> SteveGG amok-crossposted across 5(!) newsgroups without Followup-To:
>> > It takes hundreds of thousands of years for anything to transverse just
>> > one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so god would have to be a very
>> > slow thinker !
>> 
>> Your logic is flawed because a lifeform that we, at our current stage of
>> development, would accept as a deity, could have discovered laws of
>> physics
>> that we have not discovered yet.  Keep in mind:
>> 
>>   “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
>>   magic.”
>> 
>>     –Clarke’s third law
>> 
>> which can been rephrased as
>> 
>>   “Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is
>>    indistinguishable from God.”
>> 
>>     –Shermer's last law

Your newsreader is broken.  Get a better one.  There were properly declared 
and encoded Unicode characters in my posting, not the character salad that 
you made out of them.
 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws>
>> 
>> However, the existence of such a lifeform grows the more unlikely the
>> more we develop our understanding of our universe.
> 
> The guy with the pointed ears is quoting...science fiction writers!!!

I have quoted *one* person who was *also* a science-fiction writer:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke>

The other, Michael Shermer, “is an American science writer, historian of 
science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its 
magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific 
and supernatural claims.”  I understand that he received a B.A. in 
psychology, and a B.A. and a Ph.D. in the history of science.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer>

What degrees have you received, “The Starmaker”?

> THAT'S INSANE!!!!

No, it is not.  Consider, for example, Asimov’s robots, and the ST:TNG 
android, Data, and compare with current robotics and the beginning of real-
life androids.  Consider “2001: A Space Odyssey” and compare with the 
International Space Station.  Consider the Star Trek tricorders and compare 
with real-life smartphones (and, most recently, a working medical instrument 
that is based on the medical tricorder and has won the Google XPrize).  
Consider Picard’s desktop mini-computer and compare with my laptop.  
Consider the Universal Translator and compare with Google Translate.  
Consider the Impulse drive and the Warp drive and compare with current 
developments in propulsion like ion thrusters.  And so on.

Science and technology have informed science-fiction at least as much as 
science-fiction has inspired scientists and inventors.  It is a fallacy to 
discredit an idea just because it comes from from science-fiction.

> British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

You are not paying attention.  I have already cited that.

> God had a dream...so he painted his dream.
> 
> 
> He took out his pen and drew a tree.

It is a dream … a *pipe* dream of yours and other creationists, who are 
unable to grasp the wonders of reality.

But we know since more than a century now that this is not how it happened. 

Instead: The tree formed, after billions of years of natural selection, from 
symbiotic plant cells, which formed first after aminoacids combined to form 
the DNA (DesoxyriboNucleic Acid) molecules located mostly in their cell 
nucleus.  Aminoacids contain, among other atoms, carbon atoms.  Carbon is a 
chemical element, the nuclei of its atoms which could only be produced by 
stellar nuclear fusion, i.e. in stars, and were ejected into the 
interstellar medium when those stars went supernova.  Stars formed after 
interstellar clouds of mostly hydrogen cooled by emitting radiation so that 
they could collapse in parts under their own gravitation, and the 
temperature of the collapsing parts of the cloud increased due to increasing 
gas pressure.  Those clouds of hydrogen gas formed from hydrogen atoms and 
free ions.  (All of this we can still *observe* happening in other parts of 
our universe, so by comparison to religion, it is _not_ just a story.)  A 
hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron.  And those particles 
were produced shortly after the Big Bang, about 13.8 billion years, short 
scale, ago.  (We can observe and have observed, over many years, the Cosmic 
Microwave Background, the afterglow of the Big Bang, which is evidence of 
the Big Bang.  Again, unlike religion, _not_ only a story.)

It strikes me as very odd that someone calling themselves “The Starmaker” is 
blissfully unaware of all of this.

> Which is worse, quoting from the bible or quoting from a ...science
> fiction book????

It is the validity of the thought, not its source, that matters.

Does it give you pleasure to ignore my Followup-To, and to crosspost *again* 
to *exactly* those newsgroups that I have trimmed from the previous 
crosspost?  Or are you simply unable to choose and handle properly the 
software that you are using?

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity *again*.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#417731 — Tricorder (was: God doesn't believe in atheist)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> […]  Consider the Star Trek tricorders and compare with real-life
> smartphones (and, most recently, a working medical instrument that is
> based on the medical tricorder and has won the Google XPrize).

Correction: It won the _Qualcomm_ Tricorder _XPRIZE_.

<http://tricorder.xprize.org/>

F'up2 rec.arts.sf.written

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#417735 — Re: Tricorder (was: God doesn't believe in atheist)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> > […]  Consider the Star Trek tricorders and compare with real-life
> > smartphones (and, most recently, a working medical instrument that is
> > based on the medical tricorder and has won the Google XPrize).
> 
> Correction: It won the _Qualcomm_ Tricorder _XPRIZE_.
> 
> <http://tricorder.xprize.org/>
> 
> F'up2 rec.arts.sf.written
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.



What came first, Star Trek or Dick Tracy?

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

#417734

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> SteveGG amok-crossposted across 5(!) newsgroups without Followup-To:
> >> > It takes hundreds of thousands of years for anything to transverse just
> >> > one galaxy, including god's thoughts, so god would have to be a very
> >> > slow thinker !
> >>
> >> Your logic is flawed because a lifeform that we, at our current stage of
> >> development, would accept as a deity, could have discovered laws of
> >> physics
> >> that we have not discovered yet.  Keep in mind:
> >>
> >>   “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> >>   magic.”
> >>
> >>     –Clarke’s third law
> >>
> >> which can been rephrased as
> >>
> >>   “Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is
> >>    indistinguishable from God.”
> >>
> >>     –Shermer's last law
> 
> Your newsreader is broken.  Get a better one.  There were properly declared
> and encoded Unicode characters in my posting, not the character salad that
> you made out of them.
> 
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws>
> >>
> >> However, the existence of such a lifeform grows the more unlikely the
> >> more we develop our understanding of our universe.
> >
> > The guy with the pointed ears is quoting...science fiction writers!!!
> 
> I have quoted *one* person who was *also* a science-fiction writer:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke>
> 
> The other, Michael Shermer, “is an American science writer, historian of
> science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its
> magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific
> and supernatural claims.”  I understand that he received a B.A. in
> psychology, and a B.A. and a Ph.D. in the history of science.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer>
> 
> What degrees have you received, “The Starmaker”?
> 
> > THAT'S INSANE!!!!
> 
> No, it is not.  Consider, for example, Asimov’s robots, and the ST:TNG
> android, Data, and compare with current robotics and the beginning of real-
> life androids.  Consider “2001: A Space Odyssey” and compare with the
> International Space Station.  Consider the Star Trek tricorders and compare
> with real-life smartphones (and, most recently, a working medical instrument
> that is based on the medical tricorder and has won the Google XPrize).
> Consider Picard’s desktop mini-computer and compare with my laptop.
> Consider the Universal Translator and compare with Google Translate.
> Consider the Impulse drive and the Warp drive and compare with current
> developments in propulsion like ion thrusters.  And so on.
> 
> Science and technology have informed science-fiction at least as much as
> science-fiction has inspired scientists and inventors.  It is a fallacy to
> discredit an idea just because it comes from from science-fiction.
> 
> > British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
> 
> You are not paying attention.  I have already cited that.
> 
> > God had a dream...so he painted his dream.
> >
> >
> > He took out his pen and drew a tree.
> 
> It is a dream … a *pipe* dream of yours and other creationists, who are
> unable to grasp the wonders of reality.
> 
> But we know since more than a century now that this is not how it happened.
> 
> Instead: The tree formed, after billions of years of natural selection, from
> symbiotic plant cells, 


What kind of nonsence is this, "What came first, the tree or the plant?" 



He took out his pen and drew a tree...now where do you think the second tree came from?



I've heard of the 'tree of Life', but i never heard the 'plant of life'....give me a break with ypur pointed ear nonsence...

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

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

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

csiph-web