The Discourses on Origins - Now "Peer Reviewed" - Hooray
Some recent discourses. Feel free to make some observations.
Rebel Jeb Can you explain to me how the universe, or "world", started?
JPHILP! I can explain the origins of the world. Dust clumps, rocks collide and melt together from the heat energy of the impact, as the planet grows over the billions of years it's growth accelerates from the greater influence it holds over matter due to it's greater mass. I however do not know the answers to the origins of the universe myself. I'm open to any ideas though that are based on modern physics.
Rebel Jeb So..you can't explain it.
Nice. It's "magical". Before you criticize others beliefs, I'd recommend figuring out the answer for your own.
JPHILP! I can criticize others beliefs all I want if they derived them from an ancient book with no scientific credibility.
Rebel Jeb And yours are derived some magical fairy tales...
JPHILP! It is in no way magical it is a descendant of Newtonian physics. Do you not consider the bible a magical fairy tale?
Rebel Jeb Yes it is. No it's not. You can't even explain it. You think that everything just appeared out of nowhere. Don't be silly. You know that's what you think. BOOM! EVERYTHING IS HERE CUZ NOTHING EXPLODED YEAH! At least we have an explanation about what happened, while you guys don't even have a vague idea.
JPHILP! Have you finished attacking the strawman? I never said anything about the big bang theory, and I never said it came out of nowhere, nor did I say I can't explain it. I said I cannot answer it, and that is because I am not sure. There are plenty of theories regarding the origins of the universe, and they don't necessarily involve the big bang as the point of origin. There does not have to be a point of origin at all. I prefer the "big bounce" theory, stating that the universe was not created, but undergoes cyclic expansions (big bang) and contractions (universe collapsing upon itself becoming a singularity). Anyone who reads about the topic does have a vague idea, but we don't venture to call them answers when we have yet to find evidence, and we do not call an idea an answer without proof, whether it be observable or provable with mathematics, whereas the creationist-theist assumes the correctness of a book which claims that it is possible to live in the stomach of a whale. Yet you call us the "silly" ones for words which you put in our mouths.
Rebel Jeb So, nothing began to expand and contract by force of nothing which created not only planets, but something as hard to understand as life. Nice math there. 0x0=infinity*. I think somebody living in a whale makes a lot more sense than nothing suddenly started randomly blowing up and contracting and suddenly everything formed along with rational thought and life. Don't you? There is a greater chance of lightning striking my xbox and it forming into a human.
JPHILP! It is not "nothing" blowing up, it is the rapid expansion of "everything" packed into a singularity, which can be triggered by quantum fluctuation. If you bothered to read about the theory I suggested you would understand that it does not state there was "nothing" before the big bang, but states that the big bang was the expansion of the boundaries of the universe, not the creation of matter and energy.
Rebel Jeb The theory doesn't work. You can't multiple by zero*. I've tried it before on my calculator, it gives this crazy thing called an error. Explain to me how, and maybe I'll believe you.
JPHILP! Stop bringing up multiplying by zero. Pay attention and you will notice that I have said multiple times that zero has nothing to do with anything apart from volume. The amount of energy and matter remains consistent, only the volume changes. The universe changes in size but its contents do not.
Rebel Jeb How did the "contents" get there?
JPHILP! They have always been there as there is no need for an origin. How did god get there?
Rebel Jeb God is outside of the laws of the world, since he made it. Since there is no creator, the beginning can't be outside of the natural laws. Therefore, you can't just magically have everything there. There has to be a beginning. That's basic logic. I thought that was rather obvious.
Rebel Jeb God is outside of the laws of the world, since he made it. Since there is no creator, the beginning can't be outside of the natural laws. Therefore, you can't just magically have everything there. There has to be a beginning. That's basic logic. I thought that was rather obvious.
http://tmallin.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!2E9B8218A1747C9D!1320.entry?wa=wsignin1.0&sa=664408397
Should explain it all well.
JPHILP! That link is flawed beyond belief. The first answer is disproven through logical deduction however the rest is foolish. It assumes that the term eternal is impossible because "You're not eternal, and neither am I. We didn't always exist. There was a time when we didn't exist. There was a time when our children didn't exist. There are all kinds of things in this world that once did not exist. In fact, everything around us once did not exist. How could the universe exist forever and then do in time, i.e. create life, what it had never done forever?" and this is incredibly self centered. It assumes that all that is familiar to humans must be eternal, and it doesn't take a genius to understand that humans are not central to existence. Whether or not humans do or do not exist everything else will or did happen. This is empirically provable as evidence for existence of the earliest humans only goes back millions of years, yet evidence for plenty of other things from earlier times can be observed by anyone (look through a telescope and the stars you see existed before humans). "How could the universe exist forever and then do in time, i.e. create life, what it had never done forever?" Answer: The conditions for the appearance of something is not defined by whether or not existed before. The laptop I posted this on was not in existence a hundred years ago, but that is hardly proof that the universe is not eternal.
Regarding "god is outside of the laws of the world, since he made it", you are assuming he made it without any logical or empirical deduction. Your logic is circular, and hence it is not valid. I can say "Zoroaster actually created the world and since Zoroaster created it Zoroaster is exempt from natural laws, and you couldn't do a thing to disprove it, yet the claim has no evidence and is equally invalid to your claims about your god. And there does not have to be a beginning as that would require "something from nothing", which by logic/the laws of thermodynamics, is impossible. And since the claims of Zoroaster's powers are equally valid/invalid to the claims of your god's powers, are in no position to say which one is correct/incorrect.
Rebel Jeb It's not flawed at all.
Self centered? You need to look up R.C. Sproul. He's one of the most giving people alive. It's pretty hilarious you call him self centered.
I win the argument. You can't multiply nothing and get something. Your theory is flawed at the core mathematically* and logically. You have yet to provide any proof otherwise.
Quote:
Regarding "god is outside of the laws of the world, since he made it", you are assuming he made it without any logical or empirical deduction. Your logic is circular, and hence it is not valid.
That makes no sense at all. Don't spew out random stuff without evidence.
How is it circular? I see no circles. Circles are like O. They look like that.
JPHILP! Definition of a circular logic: Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.
Don't say I'm the one spewing out things with no evidence. My theory is not mathematically flawed to the core because there is no multiplication by nothing. It is cyclic and therefore it does not involve the multiplication of nothing. Stop playing the charlatan and lying about what I said. I have said several times that it does NOT involve the multiplication by nothing, yet you keep on putting that into it, and to say that your irrelevant multiplication is my theory is plain malicious. It is true that I have yet to provide proof otherwise, yet I did not say that it is true, only that it is a possibility, and there are many more. I'm not the one spewing out things without evidence, I had stated no evidence but have rebutted your lies about what I have said. I do not need evidence because I do not assert the theory to be true, only to be a theory which requires further investigation. You can find evidence by asking a theoretical physicist, it is not my area of expertise. You on the other hand have asserted creationism to be true and have offered no evidence yourself.
"Regarding "god is outside of the laws of the world, since he made it", you are assuming he made it without any logical or empirical deduction. Your logic is circular, and hence it is not valid."
This is not random spewing, it is a rebuttal to what you have said, and you have yet to validate that claim. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than "How is it circular? I see no circles. Circles are like O. They look like that." which shows you are unfamiliar with the term yet you call it flawed without knowing what it is.
After doing some searching I have found nothing about RC Sproul and any giving, unless you mean hosting conventions. Or do you mean his son with the same name, the tax fraud?
You say that I spew things without evidence, yet you have provided none at all. Provide me with some empirical evidence and I will take back all that I have said.
Rebel Jeb There is multiplication. There has to be since there is a force involved. Yet there is nothing, so the multiplication ends in 0*.
Quote:
"Regarding "god is outside of the laws of the world, since he made it", you are assuming he made it without any logical or empirical deduction. Your logic is circular, and hence it is not valid."
That's not a rule of logic.
Quote:
After doing some searching I have found nothing about RC Sproul and any giving, unless you mean hosting conventions. Or do you mean his son with the same name, the tax fraud?
His preachings, his donations. Extremely large. Do you do the same?
Quote:
You say that I spew things without evidence, yet you have provided none at all.
I have provided links from famous professors, you have provided none...
JPHILP! http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-or-big-bounce
http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/new-...ock-big-bounce
There thats more links than you. And the fame of a professor means nothing, Deepak Chopra is famous yet claims to heal with quantum theory.
RC Sproul's donations are not his charity, it is those of his flock, they are the charitable ones.
Where do you keep getting this zero? Do you not understand that in this theory the only zero is volume, and there is plenty of evidence for that being possible i.e. black holes. And circular logics are invalid as they rely on the assumption that they are real because the prove each other without any outside confirmation.
*Notice who this equation was introduced by, is being repeated by, and being attacked by
Originally Posted by JPHILP!
. 
