This thread is about asking theists what they believe respectfully. It is for atheists to get a better understanding of the views of theists. Remember the questions being asked are from atheists to theists. There is a twin thread where theists can ask atheists questions.
I am not trying to create an us against them mentality which is why there are twin threads. I am trying to avoid bickering and pointless attacks.
Theists remember that God loves everybody on these threads, try to reflect that love.
Atheists remember that everyone on this thread is seeking truth, just like you. Please respect their search of truth.
I will not delete any comments, or report any comments. However if you are beng disrespectful and trolling you will be ignored. Try to contribute to intellectual discussion with respectful and insightful views.
Hey theists let me start you off with a question. What do you think of the beginning of the Universe?
Beginning does not belong to the universe itself. But to the things that are in it.
for example the earth had a beginning thus it will end.
Maybe this is the question that is meant to be asked, is it?
Before the beginning of anything in the Universe there must be a beginning to the Universe. This is what I was asking.
Beginning is a concept . It need a sentient being to conceive. In nature there is no beginning.
My friend, you can ask the question 1000000000 times over and still not find an answer simply because the answer lies beyond the parameters of the question.
What is the universe? This is the first qjestion needs answering. If you were to answer it correctly then you would know not to ask when did it begin.
The universe is existence itself and time is an attribute of existence not the father of it.
So in a manner of speaking I can say it has no beginning and you would understand, and when I also say it begins and ends on a daily basis you would also understand.
For the universe is a product of itself, existing without time, but still perpetuates itself within time.
science and religion both seek to answer this question but neither have the capacity to look beyond the perimeter of time. This is why they both give half answers that amonts to ignorance because they can only end exactly where they begun.
There is a heaven and the earth that have a beginning and an end, but since the when of threm is shrouded in mystery, for they are governed by time.
Why do you insist that the universe must have necessarily had a beginning, but at the same time insist that there exists an entity that necessarily had no beginning?
Don't you see how those two assertions are inconsistent?
You are to be commended for your mature thread.
As to your question OP...I dont know how exactly the Universe began,it is much to comprehend,but I am in awe of the what ,who ,why
Someone or something definately had a plan greater than I could ever come up with:)
I believe that in the beginning, God created the universe. The means by which he created the universe are still being sorted out in places like the Large Hadron Collider facility in Europe.
I do not, however, know how the universe began.
Shiva and kali have created and destroyed the universe an infinite number of times.
She asked what our beliefs were. Did i claim it as a fact?
For the moment, yes. I like to keep an open mind. Ive changed my mind before.
Then it is not shiva and kali, it is vishnu brahma and shiva.
Vishnu came from a lotus leaf, then a lotus came out of his navel from which brahma came and then shiva, all three the manifestations of aadiparasakthi.
But the lotus leaf was always there.
Still, Isn't it a little out of touch with reality!!??
For, how, in reality there could be a beginning for the "universe"?
It is no more out of touch with reality than any theory of the universe, whether it has a beginning or not. Please give me any theory on the existance of the universe that makes any logical sense.
Do you agree that the only thing we can say for sure is this "universe" exists?
Then let us define universe first so that we may know we both are referring to the same thing.
I say universe is the space and all the matter. Space means 'nothing'. The static distance between any two objects is 'space', that which has no shape or boundary and matter is anything that has got shape, anything ranging from a simple hydrogen atom to a super mega star.
I dont completely agree with your definition, but i will temporarily for the ease of discussion. Because id like to see where you're going with this.
it is quite simple. What we call universe is the earth, planets, satellites, stars, pulsars(stellar objects)..... and the boundless, border-less space. Universe is not an object, but a concept as universe has no borders.
Space is 'the absence of everything' or 'nothing', hence space is always there. Space cannot be created. To say space is created is oxymoron.
Matter also cannot be created, at least some matter.
So then it turns out that neither matter and space are created and hence universe is not created.
Space can not be "nothing" if it can be warped by gravity. It has to consist of somethIng.
There you are contradicting yourself. If space is something then what is 'nothing'? Imagine two objects, what is that which separates the two things, that separates the surface of the two things? So how can gravity bent 'it'? If space is border-less, what is the meaning of 'bending'? You can bend a rod because it has shape. How will you bend 'nothing' which has no shape?
It doesn't matter whether there are different objects in our 'universe', by space we only refer to the distance between the objects, whether it 0.00000000000000000001m or 1000000000000000m, whether the object is a hydrogen atom or a 'quark'.
Space is indeed something. Nothing implies absolute nothing including space. This is a concept that is quite radical and hard to wrap ones mind around but that would be the true definition of nothing.
Nope we can say for sure that the Universe began, do you believe in the Big Bang?
In what way? You haven't seen the beginning of the universe, have you?
Let as for the time being agree the 'bang' occurred. Does my non believing it make it not so?
I was asking if you believed it occurred because if you do than I could prove that the Universe had begun to exist using the Big Bang. If you said you did not believe it then I would use the absurdity of infinity to prove there was a beginning. I was trying to find out which approach would suit you better.
That is a strong assertion of mere opinion.
All those scientists really should take some lessons from you, and stop wasting their time and (our) money trying to work it out.
But, that would mean taking YOUR word for it, and thereby become idiots, as you earlier defined.
Therefore the research must go on.
No-one wants to be (perceived as) an idiot, DO THEY?
If you are as intelligent as you claim, if yo respect your own authority and not other peoples,
Then tell me what is time and beginning, without the nonsense of red shift.
PS: It is the "beginning" that is the assertion.
I forgot to add, though you might trust the authority of the 'relativity' idiots who somehow try to make their wild propositions true, the first rule in physics is "matter can neither be created nor destroyed".
The 'research' must go on, whether it is by the church or the relativity/quantum 'scientists', they too need to make a living and as long as there are gullible idiots, the show will continue.
But you said!
If you listen to someone else, you are not a critical thinker,
therefore, and idiot. If we take your word for it, we become idiots!
If we come to different conclusions to you, we are idiots, because you disagree with us.
What else needs to be said?
Oh, and your point that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", from memory, it should read, "energy cannot be created nor destroyed", NOT matter.
That only holds true for human ability. It says nothing about an infinite, all powerful (Creator) God.
PS, When did I claim to be "intelligent"?
Please make up your mind, either I'm intelligent, or an idiot.
Perhaps I'm an intelligent idiot! I've been called worse.
You are an idiot, don't you doubt it for any moment, so you just trust authority.
Energy can not be created? That is a pity, for energy is the ability to do work. You lack the ability to think, and now that it cannot be created, you'll have to remain like this till your end.
You are so educated that you could not even rebut my statement.
Here's the reality.
"The Law of Conservation of Energy
Within a system the amount of energy is constant. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, It can be transferred from one form to another. "
Courtesy of http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/Ene … Basics.htm
Oh, BTW did you figure the answer out yourself, or did you trust authority that taught you this?
I told you DO NOT put the relativity nonsense as argument and not use argumentum ad verecundiam
Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Hence energy is a concept. It is nonsense to say a concept cannot be created or destroyed, all concepts are conceived by sentient beings. It is matter that cannot be created or destroyed.
I see you really do KNOW IT ALL.
No-one should not challenge such superior intellect.
It is the same smugness that is seen in all religious people, though they can never critically think nor use logic. You are blissful in your ignorance, please continue it. Your aim is not to search the truth nor understand the reality but to make more followers that you won't feel stupid and alone in your nonsense.
Matter AND Antimatter can both be created. Space isn't the universe. The universe is in space. If the big bang started the universe, then the perimeter of it, that is, where it ends is beyond our ability at the present time to perceive, simply because that no matter where we aim our telescopes, we are looking into the past. The universe, if science is right, does have a border...we think. Space? Supposed to not have one, but same same.
The Big Bang is the expansion space between galaxies. The Big Bang explains that space is expanding, that the Universe is expanding. The Big Bang did not start the Universe but rather began at the absolute beginning of both space and time.
Consider these syllogisms.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the Universe had a cause.
If you deny that the Universe began to exist then you are basically claiming the Universe existed for an infinite amount of time. This is an impossibility considering that time is finite. This logical arguement is rock solid.
1) The fine- tuning of the Universe is due to physical necessity, chance or design.
2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3) Therefore, it is due to design.
This would be the logic behind the existence of at least one designer.
Finite is for an object. Only an object can be finite and time is not an object.
Consider if time was infinite. Could this moment ever come to happen? There would be infinite time and infinite events occurring before we could ever reach this point.
Lets say you have infinite steps until you arrive home. Will you ever arrive home? No because no matter how many steps you take infinite steps lay in front of you.
Infinity simply cannot apply to time in a logical manner. Anything governed by time cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time. Am I making sense? Let me know if you want clarification.
That is still not proof that time is finite. Perhaps if you can prove that the universe is a closed system. But as there is no proof of that either, it is still only congecture.
Do you believe that time is infinite? If so defend it logically. If you cannot do so than the more logical answer stands.
I believe in an infinite expansion/ contraction process, where of course each period would have a finite amount of time.
But that is a personal belief.
A static universe is another possibility, and until you can prove which is true, there is no way to prove if time is finite or not.
I also believe that you need to study up on what logic is unless you want to continue looking like a fool.
Infinity cannot be applied to anything. Objects are finite. There is no object that is 'infinite'. May be you want to use the term incessant. Time is a measurement. So the '0' is what you assume as '0', just like in a race you decide the beginning and end of the race, but the track does not end or begin.
Therefore, the Universe could not be eternal NOR infinite.
That contradicts your earlier statement that the Universe is without beginning.
So, which is it?
Are you not understanding or what?
Finite denotes objects and its size(that is having a limit). Incessant counting is not infinite. An infinite object is a contradiction because there should be space around it to give it shape. Besides an infinite object should be solid that we won't be able to move. Universe is a concept that denote the matter and space.
Space and matter are eternal, so you can use the common language and say universe is eternal. 'Eternal' and 'infinite' are different.
Time does not have a destination, thus it doesn't matter if there were infinite "steps" on the way to this moment. We are still here.
Try thinking of it like a line from geometry class. Lines go on infinitely in each direction, but that doesn't mean you can't identify and name different segments of that particular line. It's arbitrary, but so is the concept of "today."
#1 seems patently false under the concepts of quantum physics. There are many things that begin to exist with no cause that we have been able to discern. There may be a cause we can't discern, but that "may" also means that there may not.
#2 seems true
#3 is based on #1 being true and cannot therefore be considered factual without further evidence.
Give me some examples of things that begin to exist without cause. This would mean things that come to exist from nothing. Remember nothing is the absense of absolutely everything including space, time and any form of matter. If any of these things exist then they are not beginning without a cause.
Ahh I was waiting for somebody to mention virtual particles. Here is the problem, they do not come from nothing. They come from fluctuations of energies within the vacuum. The vacuum is not nothing, and the energies are not nothing. These particles have a cause, the fluctuation of the energies.
I actually agree with you. But until that is proven, that is only a belief, not reality.
I do not think the point is to prove anything absolutely, it is about proving that there is a rational basis behind different beliefs. It seems to me that it is more rational to say the cause behind the beginning (or as I understand your belief is multiple beginnings?) is God or multiple Gods, than to say that the cause is the Universe itself, or nothing. I cannot think of another option. If you can please let me know.
How do you prove something is rational?
What are you basing your definition of rationality on?
You are talking about what FEELS more right to you.
Cause is actually a verb, to cause. So you mean there was 'somebody/something' to cause. Then that 'somebody' also needs cause....logical contradiction
Space is nothing or rather our conceptualization of nothingness. The static difference between two objects, that which gives shape to objects, that which separates two surfaces. Time is a concept based on the locations of objects and our memory. Only matter exists.
But then what do you mean by 'exist'?
"There are many things that begin to exist with no cause that we have been able to discern."
Can you give me an example?
By definition this cause would be eternal, uncaused, timeless and spaceless. In order for it to cause space and time it must be outside of space and time. In order to create nature it must be outside the natural "world". So by definition God would not be caused, he would not have began. He just was. This may not make sense to many people but that is what makes sense to me.
"This may not make sense to many people"
That's because it's not logical. It's a leap of faith, not based on evidence or logical proof. Or if it is, there are too many unsupported assumptions as givens for it to stand up.
I'm not saying you're wrong, you understand. I think we're pretty much on the same page,as far as the question of God's existence goes. But I am saying that your assertions are faith-based, not reason-based, and the distinction is important.
Yes I agree with you. That is the point of these two threads. To ask what theists believe and what atheists believe. Not to provide absolute proof that one way or the other is the correct way.
It is to discuss and understand what people believe and why. There is a lot of hostility and I am not sure why.
Well, I suspect it's because many people feel a powerful need to be right, and further, they think that being agreed with is a necessary component of being right. As a corollary, they interpret disagreement as some kind of threat/insult.
Also, a lot of folks (both theists and atheists) view their ideas about God's existence or non-existence as self-evident--any idiot could see that their ideas are the right ones. When someone disagrees, they're obviously some kind of idiot. And who respects an idiot? So it can be easy to start talking down to people who disagree with one on the subject of God.
And there's also an element of doubt. Nobody gets hostile when someone claims that apples fall up when you drop them. Such person generally gets ignored. But if someone says there's no God, or that God is a bowl of spaghetti, or that Odin created the world from a block of ice, well, that riles people up if they think that there is a God, or that God is a bowl of tortellini, or that the universe was sneezed out of the nostrils of the Great Green Arkelsiezure. Why all this hostility about God but not about upward-falling apples? 'Cos we know for sure that apples don't fall up, but we don't know for sure about God and what he wants from us. All we have is faith about that.
Usually, the arguments aren't about God's existence, though. Rather, they're about some minor point of doctrine (how old the Earth is, or whether speciation ever really happens), and so many religious folks take disagreement with this one piece of doctrine as denial of all faith. And boy, is that threatening!
And the fear leads to anger, which, as Yoda teaches, leads to hate, etc.
That is pure unadulterated nonsense. Space and time are both concepts.
Now if two objects are moving away from each other the distance between them increases, not the space that expands.
You are an atheist, a believer who trust argument from authority.
I'm not an Atheist. I'm not a believer either. I responded to your post with what I thought about your post.
This is the comment to which you rolled your eyes.
"Space and time are both concepts.
Now if two objects are moving away from each other the distance between them increases, not the space that expands."
Since you do not consider space and time as concepts, you should be considering them as objects. So please post or send a link to the picture of these objects , that I can see them.
You're too funny!
Your statement about the distance between two object increase. But then you speak about how space doesn't expand. Regardless of whether or not you're going to admit being foolish in this regards is another thing, but when distance between two object increase, then the SPACE between them expands.
Granted, the space isn't expanding on it's own, but does expand regardless because the distance between the two object increases.
No pictures necessary to show or explain. Your word usage and logic is faulty.
Space is a static concept, while motion(increasing distance) is a dynamic concept.
A static concept you can make out from a photograph, while dynamic only from a movie. You are mixing the two.
So only the distance increases, not space. Space is not an object like your pants to expand. When two objects move no 'new' space move out in that area.
Can you transfer space in a box? Suppose you go to outer space and open a box and 'catch' the space there and when you get back to earth, is it the same space that is in the box?
Again, you're refusal to admit that the space between the two object expands(increases) if the two things are continuing to move away from each other. If you're just talking about the distance between object and neither are moving, then yes space would not expand/increase. Then again, neither would the distance.
How would you know the difference? I can have an empty box which is only filled with air. The box is obviously filled with air which takes up space inside the box. Then seal the box completely shut making it airtight. Then transport it from one location to another. Did I move space? Did I move air?
You cannot tell the difference between what air or space by looking it. Would the air be any difference now that it has been moved from one space to another?
You told me I've no logic so your refusal to think logically is baffling.
Space is a static concept, the distance you get from a photograph(a single frame), not the distance you make out from a movie. For motion you need at least two frames. It is the distance that increased, not space. Just because the distance increased doesn't mean space expanded. It only meant you have to use an extra length of tape to measure, there is or was nothing in between to expand. To expand, 'space' should be a 'thing', like rubber band. But space is the ABSENCE of things. Don't confuse space between two objects(as used in common parlance) as space.
You can. The air is made up of gases which has a composition(small small ball like things) and pressure. You can visualize the air that is moving in the box and move out when the box is open. Can you do that with space.
Here is a link to the picture of oxygen.
Can't you imagine such things in a box? Can you do the same with space?
I think you guys are using different words to say the same thing.
Look, suppose there are two submarines cruising along under the sea, surrounded by water. The captains decide to split up: one sub goes north; the other goes south.
The distance between them has increased. There is also more water between them, but did the water expand? Is there suddenly more water in existence, or does some other water (that already existed) now sit between the subs?
The water=space analogy kind of breaks down when we get to the edge of the observable universe. There is some controversy about what's out there. Some think that there's more space (full of nothing) that the universe is expanding into, and others think that there's nothing (not even more space) beyond the edge, and that as the universe expands, more space is being created.
I don't pretend to know which is correct, or to fully understand the logic/math behind the two theories.
Jomine, the evidence shows that space is bent by gravity. Therefore space has to be made of something in order to be bent.
Atoms and quarks are not "things". They are energy. Everything is energy. Everything is connected. There is no "nothing", no empty space.
There is no evidence. That is conjecture based on relativity to explain gravity.
Now if you still think space bent, kindly post a picture of bend space.(remember space has no border)
Atoms are "things", they have a shape. It is building block of all matter in the universe.
Quarks are concepts or conjunctures from experimental "results".
Energy is a concept that denote motion.
If there is no space, what gives shape to any object? If everything is connected without space as you allege, how do we move, why the universe is not one solid block?
I suppose that what you are saying is that you are an idiotic atheist?
I suppose you can say that about yourself. Atheist or theist, both are believers who trust in the authority of somebody else and who cannot think for themselves, hence idiots.
Is it more foolish to look to others for a source of knowledge or to rely solely upon oneself for all knowledge? Where does this knowledge come from?
Let's see, the original question was, "What do you think of the beginning of the Universe?" posed in post two.
After reading all the babble-on (Babylon) contained in some of these posts since, I can only conclude that:
God created the universe around 14 billion years ago. He created the earth around 4.5 billion years ago. Then around 3500 years ago God told Moses about all this (and that). Moses, not being a rocket scientist, wrote it down in words he could understand and would make sense to his brother, Aaron, who was to be his mouthpiece.
That's God's story and I'm stickin' to it.
What do you think about the documents not written by Moses?
Divinely inspired, but not infallible.
Even what Moses wrote down was copied and copied and copied and copied again. Although rather meticulously, it would appear.
Sometimes. He created things that are good. Like woman.
What are some examples of when you would say he was not good?
Well, it was pretty mean of God to give the village atheists on this forum no ears to hear.
That's like hooking up some dude with Kate Upton (cover girl Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition) without raising him from the dead.
Funny but that I would argue that the lack of ears would be the choice of the atheists, and often the theists too.
Does believing in God impact your life?
Well sure believing in God impacts my life. Otherwise I wouldn't keep praying for Kate Upton to knock on my door. But that's my flesh body talking.
Ultimately, I'm more interested in my spiritual body. Although I am concerned about this no sex in heaven business. But then, the Muslims could be right. 72 raven-haired virgins in paradise. In any event, the village atheists won't be there to disrupt Bible study.
When you get a free moment, there is a thread that needs the perspective of an intelligent woman. It is entitled "Most offensive reply" by Rad Man.
I won't even attempt to influence your perspective, if that were even possible.
Everything You said ... and also ...
I'm not going to look it up but it seems like ... according to that which is written ...
Wasn't Abraham born very soon after Noah died.
SOoo Abraham had a whole bunch of uncles and aunts that would have been telling him stories almost streight out of the horses mouth so to speak.
What he wrote and what he didn't ?? I haven't got a clue.
I do remember something about Jerusamem being being sacked in 605 and again in 486 when most everything was either taken to Babylon or destroyed.
And finally in 450-ish EZRA was commishoned to gather together what he could in an effort to re-establish the Hebrew religion/customes etc.
If I'm wrong about any of this ? feel free to correct me.
How does energy get from one atom to another if they are separated by empty space? What is the medium?
Energy is the ability to do work.
Work(W) = Force * distance:
[force = mass* acceleration = Kg*m/s2]
So work = kgm2/s2 or Kg*(m/s)2
It just means the distance traveled by an object. So when you say energy transferred it means the motion transferred from one object to the other.
How do you transfer motion?
Through a medium. They have to be connected somehow for a transference of energy. What is that?
Through a medium? Through physical contact. Objects does not wave a magic wand to transfer motion. Can you move a stone by looking at it or by wishing it to move?
Please stop being so defensive. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I want to know what you think. I think your views are interesting.
What if the two atoms arent touching? How is the energy transfered?
No I'm not defensive, I'm trying to explain so that you can understand what exactly I'm saying.
"What if the two atoms arent touching? How is the energy transfered?"
Energy is the motion of one atom that is transferred to the other. There is no way it can be done without physical contact. It doesn't mean it should be direct, suppose the atom hits another atom and the the second atom hit a third one, so the energy(motion) is transferred from the first atom to the third without direct contact, but then it needs an intermediary.
What about about fields? What part do they play?
Fields are again a concept, a dynamic concept. Suppose a magnetic 'field', how do you determine it? by bringing a piece of iron and find out where all the influence are there and mark it.
So the question has to be rephrased, how does a magnet attract another or an iron piece without touching it? Or we can ask how sun attract earth without touching it.
As we know there is no magic in the universe, then we have to explain how this is done without any magic or how the motion is transferred without touch.
So if sun attract earth, rationally there should be some connection between earth and sun, some physical connection, we call that connection gravity.
That is exactly what im getting at. There has to be some kind of medium that we cant see to transfer energy between bodies that are separated by space.
What do YOU think is going on? How is the energy transfered?
That means there is a physical connection between every atom in this universe.
So we only have to find out the shape of that thing. The medium is light, or the medium that transmit light and gravity. if we consider the properties of light we have to come to the conclusion that the thing is a rope like structure that is made of electric and magnetic threads. So when one atom vibrate the motion is transferred along the rope to the other. When the motion get in to our eye we perceive it as light.
So, now we have a physical connection connecting all matter, and no space between. We just can't see it
It also has shape, according to you. We just haven't found out what that shape is! :rolleyes:ok. So, light is a rope, but it just works in one direction. We see the sun, but it can't see us. Light is motion! HHHMMMMM.
I think I'm starting to get it.
Seems quite different from the mainstream understanding on this, but I'm open.
Again the good old nonsense.If there is no space, how do you make out the shape? Suppose two balls are connected by a rope does that mean there is no space?
Same nonsense, and a failure to read fully and comprehend. We cannot see the shape, just like we cannot see the atom, that does not mean it has no shape.
Really aka-dj, have you no brain? Impulses travel in both direction. Sun is an inanimate thing. Only a living thing can 'see'.
No dj, you are not, you are lying just like your kin, the theists. Light and sound are just motion. Sound is the motion of air and light the 'wave' that is transmitted along the rope.
Please explain "rope".
Either there is space (nothing, as you clarified), or there is "rope" that we cannot see, therefore has no shape.
You can't have it both ways!
I can only ask you to Imagine two balls connected by a thread. How does that appear? Is there space that separates the two balls? Is there space 'around' the balls and the rope?
I'm draw a picture for you when I can get a computer.
At the least you can Imagine 2 black circles that is connected by a line. The white back ground is the space.
"please explain rope"
Can you explain apple? If you want to see the rope visit my hub on light.
Sorry, but your example does not fit the scenario.
There is NO-thing within the space separating two objects.
YOU are the one who said that. I agree.
So, how can you conjure up a physical connection between tow bodies?
Using the sun and it's light, (which travels through NO-thing), it is actually billions and trillions of tiny "ropes" stretching from the sun, to us? That would make the space full of "rope", and therefore negate it' being NO-thing!
* This is all using YOUR imagery and language!
You still believe in magic, that is why you cannot understand. Sun does not magically attract earth, sun cannot(for there is no magic in nature), so rationally there should be some physical connection between sun and earth, and when we can see a connection, the light, why do we have to think further?
The white back ground yo see is the space, you only have to imagine it in 3D. I drew only 3 ropes for ease and simplicity. It doesn't matter there is a zillion ropes, there should be space 'between' each to give it shape.
This is pure fantasy.
If there are a zillion "ropes", then there would be no space between them, for they will take up all the space available.
If this were not the case, light from the sun would have "blank, or dark spots" where your so called space would be, that light "ropes" don't fill.
You do indeed have fertile imagination, I'll give you that.
Unfortunately, having a fertile imagination does not qualify you to call others idiots.
Have fun with your quantum physics games.
Sure, you likely don't believe in gravity either!
Ahh, so you agree with jomines explanation of energy transfer model, do you?
Perhaps I should not be surprised.
Of course I believe in gravity. I ah held to the planet by zillions of invisible "gravity ropes"!
My favorite scientific explanation of gravity is as follows."there's no such thing as gravity. The earth just sucks!"
But aren't you surprised the sun's gravity isn't blocking out the light to the earth?
Actually it God's hands that hold earth and sun together!
NOW your talking,
even if you don't believe it.
He does indeed uphold ALL things by His mighty power (His invisible ropes)!
Now I understood. You can only accept nonsense. Well some brains are like that, evolution. But it'll be better if you can change the hunter-gatherer mind set.
Sad. Trouble is, your mind is very fruitful imagining theories that explain the world around you, but you think less of others who imagine alternatives. Even if all I am doing is imagining nonsense, it is as good as your "ropes" theory.
If it is evolution that makes me think this way, then you should be ALL THE MORE accepting of me than you are.
You show way too much prejudice against believer (of whatever faith) simply because they didn't EVOLVE like you.
If evolution were true, and actually explained our "being here", then it and it's followers should be the most accepting of ALL other views.
You, by your judgmental attitude, and prejudices actually prove that evolution is false, on all levels.
But, please keep believing it's "scientific nonsense". I won't hold any prejudice against you as you do me.
AKA - you seem to be confusing a proven scientific fact with a life philosophy.
I think this is where your problem comes from.
In any case, evolution is less accepting of other views/types/mutations. These changelings need to outperform their competition to survive. It is all very messy and violent. Which proves it is true. In fact - you have just proven it to be true.
Evolution is the reason christians have been murdering non believers for so long and the reason you are here fighting all the time. You are genetically driven to try outperforming the competition.
Fortunately - your time is at an end. Your mutation of religious impairment is slowly dying off. It was dominant for a brief window, but ultimately useless.
Evolution is not about accepting another view, its about survival.
Your primitive brain and thoughts would've been Good if we were in the hunter gatherer stage, but alas now we are in the modern era were recognising patterns, where there is none, is actually a hindrance. Well you cannot understand it nor able to think logically and rationally but I'm not surprised, your brain is not wired for that. You can only accept authorities and you want to see patterns, that is your problem. Don't feel bad when people who can think ridicule you.
"Trouble is, your mind is very fruitful imagining theories that explain the world around you, but you think less of others who imagine alternatives. Even if all I am doing is imagining nonsense, it is as good as your "ropes" theory."
Your theory if it can be called a theory has only holes, it does not explain anything, and fail at the conception stage itself, while the rope theory explain how gravitation works.
"You show way too much prejudice against believer (of whatever faith) simply because they didn't EVOLVE like you"
I'm as prejudiced against you as you are against an ape.
"If evolution were true, and actually explained our "being here", then it and it's followers should be the most accepting of ALL other views."
As Mark and I already explained evolution is about survival not accepting views. It mattered in the wild to run away when a leaf moved thinking it is lion, but not in the modern world.
" But, please keep believing it's "scientific nonsense"."
Science is just the rational explanation of nature. It is the supernatural that is nonsense. Your supernatural is an euphemism for "I don't know". If you want to show rope theory is nonsense the only thing you have to do is show a contradiction or a phenomenon(related to gravity or light) that cannot be explained by the theory, got any?
If you can "think", can you spot the contradiction in the picture of the torch above?
As if you can see individual ropes whose diameter is less than that of an atom!
Can you at least see the blind spot in your own eye?
Al least you should know 'light' travels only in straight line.
So do you see the 'blind spots' when you light a torch to the wall, for the farther you get the more and larger the 'spots'?
I took the time to read your physics hubs. Your thread theory simply wouldnt work. You seem to be suggesting that for each particle of light i see, there is a physical thread connecting the sun to my eye. I cant imagine the implications of that alone. And then the gravity threads as well. These threads would all have to have a physical structure. There would have to be so many(trillions of trillions) of these threads to account for all the interactions in the universe that it doesnt make sense when you look at anything beyond a couple of atoms.
Thanks for reading the hub. It is not my theory, it is Bill Gaedes' as I aknowledge in the hub.
Just like you, I was trying to make a sense out of the world. We cannot propose magic for gravity so the only method for gravity is a physical connection and the only theory that supported that was the thread theory. The two theories put forward by relativity scientists(bending space and particle theory) are Nonsense. Why the EM field of light is wrong I've explained in the hub.
Light and gravity acts through the same thread. Gravity is the tension on the thread while light is the impulse that travel through the thread.
You can read about the theory in Bill Gaede's hubs. I too have some reservations about the theory but he had explained almost all phenomenon without any contradiction and hence is plausible. So read that, if you want to know more about that theory.
For my part, I actually do not propose any theories but only try to show the holes in existing theories, including god theory. But people insist that before I can point out that the bridge is weak and about to collapse, I ought to make a bridge first. So I propose the thread theory which is plausible with nearly no holes and if you read his hubs he has answered your question.
by Christina4 years ago
I have been noticing that Theists are usually stuck with the burdan of proof when it comes to their beliefs. This thread is about asking Atheists what they believe respectfully. It is for theists to get a better...
by chasemillis4 years ago
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Ok that's easy.So that means that the Universe has been around forever. That would be great, except there are no real world examples of infinity. If infinity is not a quality of...
by janesix3 years ago
Whether your view is religious or scientific. And if you think the Universe is a steady state(as in, has no beginning or end),then try to explain that instead. Thank you.
by Claire Evans4 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
by Dattaraj23 months ago
I have read some articles that suggest Atheists are generally smarter than Theists. Someone shared a link in an Indian Facebook group and Atheists were like; "Theists are dumber because their minds are occupied...
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
According to the dictionary, the term Deism was used during the intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Deism accepts "the existence of a creator on the basis of reason," but rejects the belief...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.