MacDaddy01:



1) That was not Anony's point. He said that structures were based using calculations of a flat earth. When challenged, he shifted to saying "assumptions"

2) If even that was the point, you would still be wrong. Being wrong about certain scientific facts and not accepting when one is wrong has stopped the priogress of mankind. Christianity held more knowledge back than it could give. Dark ages.

You are desperately picking at straws. The point was that in their wrong estimation, the earth was flat. Yet they used that wrong estimation in making vehicles to move from point A to Point B.

Anony's example on the flat earth is slam on point. Mazaje was just pedantically picking at straws. The substance of the argument is that man did not know the overall nature of the earth as spherical at some point in time. He thought the earth flat. But this wrong notion of the earth's nature did not stop him from making carts and chariots to move about from place to place. THEREFORE man being wrong about the overall structure of the universe would not necessarily stop him from being able to move in the universe! Better knowledge would simply mean that he moves about better.

Most importantly, contrary to martian's suggestion, moving around successfully in chariots did not prove that early men were right and the earth was flat. As such moving about successfully from one planet to another does not prove that current scientists are right about the overall nature of the universe or the commencement of spacetime.

MacDaddy01:

dodging again?


Were you not saying that people believed the flat earth and certain systems and structures were put in place based or with an assumption of a flat earth idea?



Anony-houdini; it rhymes and it's true!

lol, This challenge that jokingly suggests that you are incapable of thought, though it started out as a joke, it is becoming more and more likely to be not too far from the tuth.

I was about to reply you when I saw that deep sight has already done the honors.

You need to learn to think man. Seriously

Deep Sight:

You are desperately picking at straws. The point was that in their wrong estimation, the earth was flat. Yet they used that wrong estimation in making vehicles to move from point A to Point B.

Anony's example on the flat earth is slam on point. Mazaje was just pedantically picking at straws. The substance of the argument is that man did not know the overall nature of the earth as spherical at some point in time. He thought the earth flat. But this wrong notion of the earth's nature did not stop him from making carts and chariots to move about from place to place. THEREFORE man being wring about the overall structure of teh universe would not stop him from being able to move in the universe! Most importantly, contrary to martian's suggestion, moving around successfully in chariots did not prove that early men were right and the earth was flat. As such moving about successfully from one planet to another does not prove that current scientists are right about the overall nature of the universe or the commencement of spacetime.

Lol......That was not Anony's point.



Addressing the point you made in bold;

Believing in a flat earth will not stop you from building houses but it will stop you from getting an accurate model of the solar system and the big bang.


Simple.

Mr_Anony:
lol, This challenge that jokingly suggests that you are incapable of thought, though it started out as a joke, it is becoming more and more likely to be not too far from the tuth.

I was about to reply you when I saw that deep sight has already done the honors.

You need to learn to think man. Seriously

Sir, I throway salute to you! Your dodging knows no bounds!

MacDaddy01:
Lol......That was not Anony's point.

Umm.......that was my point. problem is that you missed it

MacDaddy01:
Sir, I throway salute to you! Your dodging knows no bounds!

double salute to you.....your inability to reason is unlimited

MacDaddy01:



Lol......That was not Anony's point.

If you think that was not his point, then indeed logical constructs and analogies are a problem for you.

Addressing the point you made in bold;

Believing in a flat earthtime being created by the big bang will not stop you from building houses spacecraft but it will stop you from getting an accurate model of the solar system and the big bang.commencement of the universe


Simple.

See my edit of your post and hopefully you will get the point.

Mr_Anony:
Umm.......that was my point. problem is that you missed it


double salute to you.....your inability to reason is unlimited

Sir Anony aka Sir remix alot!


You were saying "calculations based on a flat earth" and now you are changing your point to flat earth did not stop people from creating structures?

Deep Sight:

If you think that was not his point, then indeed logical constructs and analogies are a problem for you.



See my edit of your post and hopefully you will get the point.

That was not Anony's point. Stop defending him. He got debunked and now he is tryong to change his point. He clearly said "calculations from a flat earth"!


As for your edit, that is cool but, I was not addressing that

Martian:

Time is a measurement of motion.

As mis-defined by scientists.

The motion of the expansion caused spacetime and our movement through spacetime is what we call "time".

If this was the case, an expansion would not be possible.

If the earth stopped moving, gravity(the curvature of spacetime) will make it fall out of it's orbit,and all other kinds of fun stuff would happen........But let' assume the earth stops rotating on its axis and stops its revolution around the sun. How would you tell time?

We know there would be terrible consequences if so any hypothetical reason the earth stopped moving, but glad you understand its an analogy. If the earth stopped moving and you and I remain alive here for any period on it, it would still take you five minutes to sit still and meditate on your day, and when you have finished you would know that that meditation is in the past. Indeed whatever else happes, you would recognize events as receding into teh past. Time would still exist.

And this would apply even if we hypothetically lived in a stationary universe where the planets, stars and galaxies were not moving: there would still be a precept of past, present and future: If all galaxies stopped moving right now, would time cease to exist? Now let me ask you another question: if the universe starts collapsing - that is, galaxies start moving back closer to one another - would time "move backward?" - Will we time travel to our past? If the earth starts rotating backwards around the sun, would that bring back the events of yesterday and yester years?

What this shows is that times exists regardless of whether cosmic bodies move or not. Thus we cannot say that time is created by movement of cosmic bodies: rather time is a perfect intangible.

MacDaddy01:


Sir Anony aka Sir remix alot!


You were saying "calculations based on a flat earth" and now you are changing your point to flat earth did not stop people from creating structures?

MacDaddy01:


That was not Anony's point. Stop defending him. He got debunked and now he is tryong to change his point. He clearly said "calculations from a flat earth"!


As for your edit, that is cool but, I was not addressing that

Wow, your ability to comprehend is very little.

Mr_Anony:

Wow, your ability to comprehend is very little.

lol....and your ability to dodge is too much!

Mr_Anony:

Wow, your ability to comprehend is very little.

This instance is just amazing. Frankly amazing.

I can't beleive anyone would be that obtuse.

Deep Sight:

This instance is just amazing. Frankly amazing.

I can't beleive anyone would be that obtuse.

Obtuse? lol....okay.


Can you please ask Anony why he then found me intelligent after meeting me in person?


I think the problem here is that we are all lost in text....maybe

MacDaddy01:
lol....and your ability to dodge is too much!

lol, blaming me for your inadequacy won't help you.

MacDaddy01:


Obtuse? lol....okay.


Can you please ask Anony why he then found me intelligent after meeting me in person?


I think the problem here is that we are all lost in text....maybe

Frankly, the more I chat with you on here, the more I doubt my impressions from that meeting

Mr_Anony:
lol, blaming me for your inadequacy won't help you.

lol.


This coming from someone claiming that numbers exist in the real world?

Mr_Anony:
Frankly, the more I chat with you on here, the more I doubt my impressions from that meeting

So, I'm a schizphrenic?


Genius by day, dumbazz by night?

MacDaddy01:
So, I'm a schizphrenic?


Genius by day, dumbazz by night?

Frankly I don't know anymore. There are points I expect that with your level of education, you would grasp easily only for you to disappoint me by displaying secondary school level reasoning.
Maybe something happens to you once you meet a keypad, I really can't tell.

Mr_Anony:
Frankly I don't know anymore. There are points I expect that with your level of education, you would grasp easily only for you to disappoint me by displaying secondary school level reasoning.
Maybe something happens to you once you meet a keypad, I really can't tell.

lol.....you're confused.

mmh am so impressed with every one's power of reasoning.... its really inspiring.
from my observations,and personal opinion,we all hold different views about "things", you may or not believe in God, in the universe or what not..
but for me what is important is making "good" this life am living right now. whether there is a God or not,whether the universe is expanding or not but living this life such that I WILL BE AT PEACE WITH MYSELF.

though it is interesting to read what others have to say in certain issues am learning.

Ihedinobi:

If it is a fundamental entity, should it not be capable of isolation from the things that possess it? Can energy exist in isolation from "all things"?

Energy is best seen by its manifestations which we know to be eternal and constant [never changing]. Some energy manifestations are not material thats why i used the entity tag in abstract..

mkmyers45: Energy is best seen by its manifestations which we know to be eternal and constant [never changing]. Some energy manifestations are not material thats why i used the entity tag in abstract..

My friend, this is exactly why we cannot define energy as eternal. We can define it as infinite but definitely not eternal. Eternal is what we use to define a specific entity with known attributes which also has the quality of timelessness. For instance, we can say that numbers are infinite but we cannot say that numbers are eternal.

Energy cannot exist on it's own, energy is only what we use to explain matter and it's motions, when it is moving, we call it kinetic and when it is at rest we talk about it's potential to move. Basically, what Einstein was talking about was that the faster a body moves, the more it sheds it's mass until it becomes so small and disappears emitting energy (light). However, since the speed of light was the highest speed known to einstein, smallest particle known to einstein was then the photon. If the photon could move even faster, then it would tend even closer and closer to nothingness i.e. no mass and consequently no energy.

Let us end this argument for once.


Anony and Deepsight, both of you have different gods (Yaweh and deist god)


How do you reach the conclusion that your god made the universe when no one knows what came before the big bang?

Whatever caused or came before the big bang is unknown. How can you claim to know that it is a god? Is it some kind of faith without evidence?

MacDaddy01: Let us end this argument for once.


Anony and Deepsight, both of you have different gods (Yaweh and deist god)


How do you reach the conclusion that your god made the universe when no one knows what came before the big bang?

Whatever caused or came before the big bang is unknown. How can you claim to know that it is a god? Is it some kind of faith without evidence?

lol...........Ok let us settle this argument for once

How do you reach the conclusion that the message you just typed is the product of a mind? No one knows what happened before you started typing.

Whatever causes you to type is unknown. No one knows what went on with you before your message appeared, how can you claim that you are capable of thought? Is this some kind of faith without evidence?

Mr_Anony:
lol...........Ok let us settle this argument for once

How do you reach the conclusion that the message you just typed is the product of a mind? No one knows what happened before you started typing.

Whatever causes you to type is unknown. No one knows what went on with you before your message appeared, how can you claim that you are capable of thought? Is this some kind of faith without evidence?

Are you now stealing ideas from Sam Harris to support your faith ?


Fail!

Mr_Anony:
lol...........Ok let us settle this argument for once

How do you reach the conclusion that the message you just typed is the product of a mind? No one knows what happened before you started typing.

Whatever causes you to type is unknown. No one knows what went on with you before your message appeared, how can you claim that you are capable of thought? Is this some kind of faith without evidence?

Throway salute. Epic sophistry there! You fail!


Sorry but your statement in bold makes no sense. The brain is used for thinking- as mapped out by neurologists. Simple thought process. I thought about writing something and my brain and CNS (central nevrvous system) helped me move my hands to type it. It is known.


Thought processes, the human brain and body have been studied to a degree that we understand what happens.


You on the other hand claim to know what happened before the big bang.


Your argument was a fail and very invalid. It made no sense. Please try again

Area_boy:

Are you now stealing ideas from Sam Harris to support your faith ?


Fail!

What?

MacDaddy01:


Throway salute. Epic sophistry there! You fail!


Sorry but your statement in bold makes no sense. The brain is used for thinking- as mapped out by neurologists. Simple thought process. I thought about writing something and my brain and CNS (central nevrvous system) helped me move my hands to type it. It is known.


Thought processes, the human brain and body have been studied to a degree that we understand what happens.


You on the other hand claim to know what happened before the big bang.


Your argument was a fail and very invalid. It made no sense. Please try again

Good, now listen . . . and I hope you get this.

The only way we know that thought exists is by inference from actions. No one has ever seen, heard or touched a thought. we only infer it by observing actions and activity in the brain.

In the same way, the universe, it's working order and the fact that it has a beginning demonstrate that it has a creator.

Mr_Anony:
Good, now listen . . . and I hope you get this.

The only way we know that thought exists is by inference from actions. No one has ever seen, heard or touched a thought. we only infer it by observing actions and activity in the brain.

In the same way, the universe, it's working order and the fact that it has a beginning demonstrate that it has a creator.

Why a creator? why not many creators?. . .

Mr_Anony:
Good, now listen . . . and I hope you get this.

The only way we know that thought exists is by inference from actions. No one has ever seen, heard or touched a thought. we only infer it by observing actions and activity in the brain.

In the same way, the universe, it's working order and the fact that it has a beginning demonstrate that it has a creator.

Wrong. Please use another analogy. Thoughts are memory based. What constitute our memories? Things that we have visualized (seen) with out eyes and our brain processes and records them. Thoughts are a product of a thinking human brain. We know where our thoughts come from, we know how they are formed. The process is well detailed in neurology. We might not fully know the whole process but we know a lot about it.


Unfortunately your claims about an orderly universe is wrong and so, no such inference can be made on such a premise. There is randomness, order and chaos in nature in the workings of the universe. You cant just select the order, put aside the randomness and then claim that god created an orderly universe.


No one knows what comes before the big bang. Your inference is illogical. The big bang model works without a god. There is no god in the calculations. The inference of a god behind the big bang is pure fantasy.

MacDaddy01:



Wrong. Please use another analogy. Thoughts are memory based. What constitute our memories? Things that we have visualized (seen) with out eyes and our brain processes and records them. Thoughts are a product of a thinking human brain. We know where our thoughts come from, we know how they are formed. The process is well detailed in neurology. We might not fully know the whole process but we know a lot about it.


Unfortunately your claims about an orderly universe is wrong and so, no such inference can be made on such a premise. There is randomness, order and chaos in nature in the workings of the universe. You cant just select the order, put aside the randomness and then claim that god created an orderly universe.


No one knows what comes before the big bang. Your inference is illogical. The big bang model works without a god. There is no god in the calculations. The inference of a god behind the big bang is pure fantasy.

Once again, the analogy is lost on you. SMH

mazaje:

Why a creator? why not many creators?. . .

Lol.....Mazaje enters the building one more time.

We have had this exact same exchange before, go look up my response, I haven't changed my position.