dalaman:


No. When they say something is literal it means exactly.


I said when they say something isn't literal what does it mean?

randomperson:

It's not tautology and I already showed u... You are only repeating arguments because you don't know where to go from there...
I believe Messi is better than Ronaldo is different from I don't believe Ronaldo is better than Messi.... So when a theist says I believe there is god, I simply say I DON'T BELIEVE there is god...
If u or any of your friends can equate both these statements to mean the same thing, logically, then no problem

randomperson:
until there is ample proof or evidence of the existence of God

KingEbukasBlog:


So what kind of evidence are you expecting that proves the existence of God .

felixomor:


That is even the voice of agnostic.
The guy wants to cross carpet

Vanceastro:

The origin of time by whom. Is that book used in universities?

felixomor:


Must it be used by universities?

Besides, the fact u havent heard of that book speaks volumes though.

Google is ur friend.
Cheers

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . Exactly . The agnostics are the ones that ask for proof not the atheists . Maybe he is agnostic

KingEbukasBlog:


Its funny how someone who is yapping about time and what not does not even know about the origin of time.

KingEbukasBlog:


Physicist Alexander Vilenkin said

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning .

Even Stephen Hawking admitted that the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

Read Stephen Hawking article on the beginning of time here : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

DoctorAlien:


The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. A finite amount of energy couldn't have brought the universe through an eternity of time. Therefore the universe is not eternal.

KingEbukasBlog:


Physicist Alexander Vilenkin said

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning .

Even Stephen Hawking admitted that the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

Read Stephen Hawking article on the beginning of time here : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

DeSepiero:
Why do you feel so?

felixomor:


U r d one raping logic here.

Ok answer these 2 questions in true or false.
And if ur answers are different,
It shows your logic is correct

If your answers are identical, U r wrong obviously.

Question 1:

Random believes Messi is not better than Ronaldo?
True/FALSE

Question 2:
Random doesnt believe Messi is better than Ronaldo?
True/false

KingEbukasBlog:


So what kind of evidence are you expecting that proves the existence of God .

Vanceastro:

The universe expanded from a certain point, I agree. But you have to show that the universe began to exist at point. Simple

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . Exactly . The agnostics are the ones that ask for proof not the atheists . Maybe he is agnostic

randomperson:

Is this a mistake?? U are comparing two opposite statements?? I don't believe u don't understand this....
Lemme explain again
1. I believe Messi is better than Ronaldo... This is a claim that Messi is better than Ronaldo-
2. I believe Ronaldo is better than Messi... Again a claim that Ronaldo is better than Messi.
3. I don't believe Ronaldo is better than Messi... Now there are different possibilities in this statement..
i. Messi is better than Ronaldo
ii. Ronaldo is equal to Messi
iii. Am not persuaded that Ronaldo is better than Messi, therefore I don't believe he is... These three bolded positions are entirely consistent with the no.3 statements... Can u show otherwise??

taurus25:


If you begin to slowly move backwards in time, you'd get to a point where space and time break down, this point - a singularly is where everything as we know today is crunched closely together. This point of singularity is just there, the most fundamental form of our existence and it just is, no one knows why the singularity was there.

Now the universe as we know now is a product of that singularity, as it rapidly expanded into space-time and all matter contained in it. So technically space-time began, but the universe itself just is.

Vanceastro:

The universe expanded from a certain point, I agree. But you have to show that the universe began to exist at point. Simple

felixomor:


Bros, please answer those questions.
"God exists"
"God does not exist"
Are opposite statements to each other.

Dont veer into agnostics please.

Answer those questions.
I beg you

DoctorAlien:


Quit being a clown. The second law of thermodynamics provides that the universe must begin.

randomperson:

Theism.. God exists
Atheism- god doesn't exist or I don't believe God exists
Get a dictionary or even a part one philosophy student... That u don't want to accept this fact doesn't affect its veracity

randomperson:

Both atheists and agnostics ask for proof... The only reason there are atheists in the first place is because there is no proof. For example, if I say the world is flat, it can be shown that the world is flat beyond reasonable doubt, but when u say there is god...

Vanceastro:

BEGIN... as in started expanding ~14 billion years ago? I agree but that isn't the same as beginning to EXIST.

DoctorAlien:


Check the dictionary meaning of "eternity" and "finite".

KingEbukasBlog:



Singularity is not a physical state of affairs it is a mathematical idealization and it is not eternal , it has an origin , so I don't get your point .

Vanceastro:

BEGIN... as in started expanding ~14 billion years ago? I agree but that isn't the same as beginning to EXIST.

DeSepiero:
I've checked so what point are you trying to make please?
I want to understand your view here.

DoctorAlien:
The universe began to exist! The amount of energy in it is finite, and so for the singularity(whatever that is) to be there eternally is impossible. It would have used up the finite amount of energy a long time ago, thus preventing the universe from existing.

taurus25:


You cannot isolate the the emergence of space and time from the existence of a singularity.

If space-time begun, then there was a singularity. And with this singularity being essentially the universe in a quatum scale
, it's emergence is unaccountable, therefore the singularity (quantum universe) always was.

DoctorAlien:


The universe began to exist! The amount of energy in it is finite, and so for the singularity(whatever that is) to be there eternally is impossible. It would have used up the finite amount of energy a long time ago, thus preventing the universe from existing.

Moreover, where was the singularity since all the space we know today came from it?

taurus25:


You cannot isolate the the emergence of space and time from the existence of a singularity.

If space-time begun, then there was a singularity. And with this singularity being essentially the universe in a quatum scale
, it's emergence is unaccountable, therefore the singularity (quantum universe) always was.

randomperson:

Empirical evidence or a logical reasons why there must be a God...