Science is worthless

[Drawmack]

Oh, it’s definitely out of laziness. I don’t actually expect to be convincing anyone of anything, I just point people in a direction and they can research stuff themselves if they like. Me going to a lot of trouble on an online forum would be quite the waste of time… more so than just being on the forum

I understand your points. I generally go to wikipedia, find the passage I want to reference, see it’s footnote number and then quote that footnote. But, I don’t link directly to wikipedia as my reference, because it’s not. Wikipedia’s source is my reference.

 

[wasmit]

I was merely pointing out that causality is limited by spacetime.

Are you saying that the fact that the BB occured, demonstrates that it was caused? If so, how do you conclude from ((1) The BB occured) that ((2) Therefore The BB event was caused)

Are you saying that causality is independent of time?
or are you saying that causality seems to be independent of time?

because in this post you say “seems to”, and earlier (119), you say “is”.

dont be the language police, i mean from the example of the BB

There is a huge difference between “seems to” and “is”. If we allow ourselves to conflate these two terms, we can prove any number of fasehoods, including geocentrism! This is not a trivial language police issue.

Nevertheless, causality being independent of time would mean that when A causes B, their occurance in time is irrelevant. Which would mean that roughly half of the time, B would be before A, and roughly half off the time, A would be before B. Like comparing two random length strings - About half the time string C will be longer, about half the time D will be.

absolutely not, cause must precede effect, cause is not contingent on time. that doesnt preclude a specific order in their relationship.

You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence!
Did you make a typo with the word “not” ?

sure you can say before and prior to time beginning, the beginning of time being your temporal reference point.",

Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?

Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?

Also, would you agree that time started at the moment of the BB event, or would you disagree? If so, why?

maybe i told this to someone else, but you can google a big bang timeline, though without a relationship between causality and time im not sure what difference it makes.

I’m just trying to understand your position. Would you agree that time started at the moment of the BB event, or would you disagree? If so, why? When do you think time started?

afaik, time started at the moment of the BB event.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you saying that the fact that the BB occured, demonstrates that it was caused? If so, how do you conclude from ((1) The BB occured) that ((2) Therefore The BB event was caused)

no, im saying that the fact that the BB happened, means that causality is not dependent on time existing

There is a huge difference between “seems to” and “is”. If we allow ourselves to conflate these two terms, we can prove any number of fasehoods, including geocentrism! This is not a trivial language police issue.

unless you dont reasonably understand what i mean, i dont think it should be an issue.

You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence!
Did you make a typo with the word “not” ?

no, the order of events isnt dependent on time. we can use reference points like the beginning of time, or the BB, what have you. we alredy covered this thoub

Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?

i guess you dont understand that i dont wish to play games, simply state your agument and be done with it.

I’m just trying to understand your position. Would you agree that time started at the moment of the BB event, or would you disagree? If so, why? When do you think time started?

afaik, time started at the moment of the BB event.

thats why i told you to google a timeline of the BB. check it out.

 

[wasmit]

no, im saying that the fact that the BB happened, means that causality is not dependent on time existing

Can you please explain this in more detail? How do you get from “The BB happened” to “causality is not dependent on time existing” ?

no, the order of events isnt dependent on time. we can use reference points like the beginning of time, or the BB, what have you. we alredy covered this thoub

How is this possible? How can A be before B (or B before A), yet independent of time?

sure you can say before and prior to time beginning, the beginning of time being your temporal reference point.",

Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ? i guess you dont understand that i dont wish to play games, simply state your agument and be done with it

I’m just trying to understand your position, and clarify your statement in the most nested quote above, so I can see where our disagreement lies. Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?

I’m just trying to understand your position. Would you agree that time started at the moment of the BB event, or would you disagree? If so, why? When do you think time started?

afaik, time started at the moment of the BB event.

thats why i told you to google a timeline of the BB. check it out.

I have, and have found that time started at the moment of the BB event. Do you agree or disagree with this start point? Why do you agree or disagree?

 

[Dameedna]

Speedy,

You are tying yourself into knots here.

Science, has undermined your faith. I suggest you deal with it, instead of spending your time trying to deny it.Loss of faith is painful, excruciatingly so. I suggest heading, in your darkest hours to some blogs and athiest websites that can help you.

All your posts, respond to this threat. I suggest you deal with it. You will gain more peace through truth, than lying to yourself.

Just some words of advice. I’ve been there It’s not as bad as you think.

Cheers

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Speedy,

You are tying yourself into knots here.

Science, has undermined your faith. I suggest you deal with it, instead of spending your time trying to deny it.Loss of faith is painful, excruciatingly so. I suggest heading, in your darkest hours to some blogs and athiest websites that can help you.

All your posts, respond to this threat. I suggest you deal with it. You will gain more peace through truth, than lying to yourself.

Just some words of advice. I’ve been there It’s not as bad as you think.

Cheers

feeling threatened are you? no link between science and atheism makes it pretty hard to claim a rational excuse for atheism.

dont worry, your not an atheist for rational reasons, and never have been, you dont like how G-d runs the universe so thats your excuse to to be an atheist.

your safe, you can still tell everyone how G-d doenst meet your moral code, and thats why your an atheist.

so dont worry, im attacking the basis of atheism as a rational, scientifically compatible position, not atheism as a personal opinion. youll still be ok.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can you please explain this in more detail? How do you get from “The BB happened” to “causality is not dependent on time existing” ?

i already have several times.

How is this possible? How can A be before B (or B before A), yet independent of time?

again answered several times

I’m just trying to understand your position, and clarify your statement in the most nested quote above, so I can see where our disagreement lies. Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?

again, answered already, make your argument.

I have, and have found that time started at the moment of the BB event. Do you agree or disagree with this start point? Why do you agree or disagree?

please link me to the time line you used then. prior to the planck epoch, we have no evidence of anything existing. time included.

if you claim time began prior to that i need some evidence, which every good physicist will tell you is impossible.

but we do know that cause must precede effect. we can assign an order to events using reference points, but thats already been discussed.

why do you keep asking questions that have been answered? do you have any new refutations? or what?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can you please explain this in more detail? How do you get from “The BB happened” to “causality is not dependent on time existing” ?

it just occured to me that you may not be realizing that physicists, place the BB prior to the observable beginning of the universe themselves. they even assign an amount of time between that BB and the end of the planck epoch, even though there is no evidence to do so. the very thing that you are saying cant be done, is done by the very people you have proposed as experts.

 

[wasmit]

Can you please explain this in more detail? How do you get from “The BB happened” to “causality is not dependent on time existing” ?

I’m trying to understand your position so that I can see where we disagree. In response to “make your argument”, I have no argument! I’m trying to understand what your argument is. This is why I ask questions when your response is unclear to me.

Can you please link or copy/paste your answers to my questions in my previous post? I don’t yet understand your position on these issues.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m trying to understand your position so that I can see where we disagree. In response to “make your argument”, I have no argument! I’m trying to understand what your argument is. This is why I ask questions when your response is unclear to me.

Can you please link or copy/paste your answers to my questions in my previous post? I don’t yet understand your position on these issues.

there are 150 posts in this thread, i find that difficult to believe. ive already answered your previous questions, and counter arguments.

do you have anything new to add?

 

[wasmit]

I’m trying to underrstand your position. Are you interested in explaining it to me in detail?

 

[elzoog]

its not a G-d of the gaps arguement, its the bare inescapable fact there can be no natural explanation for existence.

it is an impossibility.

Only if you equivocate between “natural” and “universe”.

 

[elzoog]

Being happy to see how you guys are skeptical of science, perhaps you could entertain yourself with the alternative here:

youtube.com/watch?v=3m0YYy9lqqs

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m trying to underrstand your position. Are you interested in explaining it to me in detail?

at this point not anymore

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only if you equivocate between “natural” and “universe”.

natural as in the metaphysical term, or physical in common parlance, as to universe, i mean the physical universe.

 

[wasmit]

I’m trying to underrstand your position. Are you interested in explaining it to me in detail?

ok.

Thankyou for your replies.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

ok.

Thankyou for your replies.

your welcome, thank you also.