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 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 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#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]

#417740

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>>>     â??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.

Your newsposter is broken.  It is traditional to stick to traditional
characters in Usenet.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#417742

Greg Goss wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>>>     â??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.
> 
> Your newsposter is broken.  It is traditional to stick to traditional
> characters in Usenet.

Utter nonsense.  (Have you ever heard of Chinese?)

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-2.3>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#417747

>"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn"  wrote in message 
>news:2039010.ElGaqSPkdT@PointedEars.de...


>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.

Sure,

We exist.

Either there is a reason, or there in no reason.

If there is a reason, what is the reason for that reason?

So...the only reason that don't require another one of the infinite turtles, 
is no reason at all. i.e. random.

If it is random, the only way of increasing your odds of winning the 
lottery, is buying more tickets.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/universal_existence.html :-)



-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html 

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

#417728

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 ? 


Are you talking about...yesterday, or the day before yesterday??

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web