tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8308729492740986513.post6870407452009347497..comments2023-10-12T04:41:56.140-07:00Comments on Thesauros: Bret - An ExplanationThesauroshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8308729492740986513.post-35912185202123291192011-08-24T12:29:04.254-07:002011-08-24T12:29:04.254-07:00I don't see why matter/energy can't be ete...I don't see why matter/energy can't be eternal. The whole "everything that is, must have a cause" is basically abstract garbage philosophy that was deep centuries ago but doesn't really raise an eyebrow, so much as elicit a sigh, from people who do study philosophy.<br /><br />What you speak of is infinite regression. If you say "God came first," then I claim to worship that which came before God. If you say nothing came before God, then you see why it is that I worship nothing, and why I am correct in my view.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02504734487692109101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8308729492740986513.post-57772798193239015092011-08-24T09:07:23.117-07:002011-08-24T09:07:23.117-07:00Side note, this...
Planck length:(–hG/c3).? 10–33...Side note, this...<br /><br /><i>Planck length:(–hG/c3).? 10–33cm; the Planck time: (h–G/c5). ? 10–44 s; and the Planck density: c5/ h–G/2 ? 1093 g/cm3</i><br /><br />...is not an accurate way to write the values you wrote here. It looks like a copy/paste of something you don't understand.<br /><br />I would love to be corrected and praise your math skills.<br /><br />Can you point out your own mistakes and correct them?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8308729492740986513.post-53999800194922675642011-08-24T08:49:12.101-07:002011-08-24T08:49:12.101-07:00Let's try to make it even simpler...
1) You s...Let's try to make it even simpler...<br /><br />1) You said: <i>No, by not scientific I mean that at one point, nothing material / matter / energy nor the laws of physics or anything for these laws to act upon existed.</i><br /><br />But we don't know this. That's the whole point. This statement means exactly what you want it to mean: At some point, nothing existed... except God. Therefore, God exists!<br /><br />Explain to me why my interpretation is not synonym to what your wrote. Please, can you at least try?<br /><br />2) I am not trying to insult you when I ask you how much math you did. I am not trying to say 'ah I know more than you'. I am just trying to get you to explain to me why you are not describing what a singularity is properly. You seem to not understand, hence why I am asking...<br /><br />3) <i>I understand that you believe something different but that belief is most certainly not grounded in what we know scientifically.</i><br /><br />That's hilarious, what a joke, you are the one who adds beliefs on top of scientific discoveries to "prove" your God exists :-)<br /><br />I told you, the only ONE thing I believe that I cannot prove 100% is that the material is all that exists. I come to that belief for very simple reasons that depend on very complex scientific advancement that generate a lot of other beliefs. You have not even refuted ONE of these beliefs. You only say: I refuse your conclusion. That is fine with me, heck I am dating a girl who agree with you on that. Plus, I would gladly drop that conclusion if it could help you understand all the OTHER beliefs I have and that I care about.<br /><br />Here's the difference: Could you do the same with God? Could you suspend your belief in God for 1 minute in order to explain to me what you believe about the universe? Again, can you please try to answer such questions?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com