popsthebuilder
New member
That first sentence didn't really make sense to me.
What does any of that have to do with truth? Degradation of the state of existence seems true to me. As do forms of chaos.
For The Sake Of Truth
- Thread starter ananomyx
- Start date
What does any of that have to do with truth? Degradation of the state of existence seems true to me. As do forms of chaos.
gcthomas
New member
You joined in on a discussion I was having with other posts, so if you don't understand that is your lookout. I've tried explaining more about what you found difficult, but unless you say specifically what you consider wrong in what I have said then we will get nowhere.
popsthebuilder
New member
Nature is of God
popsthebuilder
New member
Nature is of God as is all else. God is immutable, and infinite and has no start that we can comprehend. Nature and existence are not the same as they are the effect, not the cause.
popsthebuilder
New member
Again; nature and the observable universe indeed shows significant signs of a cause. And nothing can be both the cause and effect of itself within perceivable physical observable existence.
popsthebuilder
New member
We have understanding of the parts of its nature that we can fathom. Science actually helps with this, by the will of God.
popsthebuilder
New member
Just because there is a theory about a multiverse that encompasses our universe in some way doesn't mean there isn't a God. And yes, existence is of God regardless of the breadth of our perception of the extent of it.
popsthebuilder
New member
Knowledge. Though it can be recorded is not of the physical. It has been proven that emotion and thought are not solely effects of chemical balances in the brain, but are to causes of these changes leading to further thought and emotion reciprocally.
popsthebuilder
New member
Antimatter isn't physical. Actually it has been hypothesized that the majority of all existence is in fact not matter and as such not material.
gcthomas
New member
Pure assertion. Why do you consider your assertion to be of higher status than my assertion?
If you accept that something can be infinite with no start, then you can conceive that nature is that infinite thing without start. Unnless you wish to blindly assert you are right, again.
Your observations about the contents of the universe do not by necessity apply to the geometry and fabric of the universe, yet you assert that your everyday observations apply to the universe but not God? Sounds like arbitrary pseudo-logic chosen to bolster the argument, but it has little merit.
No-one claims that emotions are a result of chemical balances - they are the result of the interaction of lots of brain cells and their actions on the body.
Antimatter IS physical - it is being used in PET scanners every day in many hospitals, and I use it in class for science demonstrations.
You seem to be making up 'facts' as you go along and simply asserting your correctness using them as a shaky foundation.
popsthebuilder
New member
gcthomas,
Not assertion. Everything but man goes about its course; the course set for it by God, without falter or waiver, but man. Everything that we observe came from a creative force. The big bang can easily be seen in the book of Genesis as "Let there be light"
Assertion? Observation.
Not assertion. Everything but man goes about its course; the course set for it by God, without falter or waiver, but man. Everything that we observe came from a creative force. The big bang can easily be seen in the book of Genesis as "Let there be light"
Assertion? Observation.
popsthebuilder
New member
How can nature be infinite if we can hypothesize coherently of its start and dilation?
popsthebuilder
New member
I meant dark matter.
popsthebuilder
New member
How can you say that the laws that bind the observable universe don't too bind the imidiatly observable?
gcthomas
New member
Assertion. 'Let there be light' could mean so many things it probably means very little.
THIS region had a Big Bang, but that was not the start. What do you think exploded? Nothing?
Matter is material - it is in the name. Perhaps you meant dark energy?
I can't understand what you are asking here.
popsthebuilder
New member
gcthomas,
Read the begining of Genesis. It has many parts that relate to the big bang and the hypothesis of quantinization or quantum mechanics.
Who said nothing exploded? No one said there was nothing be for the theory of the big bang.
Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.
Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary (baryonic) matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.54%[note 1] of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the universe.[4][5][6]
Read the begining of Genesis. It has many parts that relate to the big bang and the hypothesis of quantinization or quantum mechanics.
Who said nothing exploded? No one said there was nothing be for the theory of the big bang.
Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.
Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary (baryonic) matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.54%[note 1] of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the universe.[4][5][6]
gcthomas
New member
Only if you shut one eye and squint with the other, holding it upside down and with the lights down low. In bright light, it is just what you'd expect from an unenlightened, bronze age goat herding society.
I'd recommend that when using Wikipedia for your source, that you either paraphrase it or delete the biblio links that expose your cut'n'paste without attribution habits. Bad form.
Last edited:
popsthebuilder
New member
Who cares if I use Wikipedia or not. Way to avoid every point I made.
gcthomas
New member
I don't care - it is useful as a short-cut to explaining something to someone who needs educating. Just be honest about it. And use it to make a point.
You posted a quote from Wikipedia and neglected to make a point. What was your point?
popsthebuilder
New member
I wasn't dishonest in any way. And the points I make are still there. I'm not here to play silly games. When you decide to take me seriously as opposed to continually insulting my intelligence and skipping around what I say, let me know.