|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 27, 2018 0:21:41 GMT
Words and phrases can also be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. Clearly I’m playing poker against a fish. You don’t know nish about common sense. Is there a special school to be as stupid as you are, or are you a natural talent? You wanna hurt me? Go right ahead if it makes you feel any better. I'm an easy target. Yeah, you're right, I talk too much. I also listen too much. I could be a cold-hearted cynic like you... but I don't like to hurt people's feelings. Well, you think what you want about me; I'm not changing. I like... I like me. My wife likes me. My customers like me. 'Cause I'm the real article. What you see is what you get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 11:19:09 GMT
Is there a special school to be as stupid as you are, or are you a natural talent? but I don't like to hurt people's feelings. Yeah, that's why you immediately fire off insults at anybody who points out how you're wrong. Because you don't like to hurt people's feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 27, 2018 12:08:15 GMT
but I don't like to hurt people's feelings. Yeah, that's why you immediately fire off insults at anybody who points out how you're wrong. Because you don't like to hurt people's feelings. You know everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You're a miracle! Your stories have NONE of that. They're not even amusing ACCIDENTALLY! "Honey, I'd like you to meet Graham from imdb2, he's got some amusing anecodotes for you. Oh and here's a gun so you can blow your brains out. You'll thank me for it." I could tolerate any insurance seminar. For days I could sit there and listen to them go on and on with a big smile on my face. They'd say, "How can you stand it?" I'd say, "'Cause I've been with Graham from imdb2. I can take ANYTHING." You know what they'd say? They'd say, "I know what you mean. The imdb2 atheist guy. Woah." It's like going on a date with a Chatty Cathy doll. I expect you have a little string on your chest, you know, that I pull out and have to snap back. Except I wouldn't pull it out and snap it back - you would. Agh! Agh! Agh! Agh! And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea - have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener!
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 27, 2018 12:18:43 GMT
Or that the very early universe was...empty. It was anything but empty if one believes the various version of the big bang theories. She meant empty of matter. Hence the reason she says “there was no matter” Is matter the only thing that fills emptiness?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 14:20:00 GMT
Yeah, that's why you immediately fire off insults at anybody who points out how you're wrong. Because you don't like to hurt people's feelings. You know everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You're a miracle! Your stories have NONE of that. They're not even amusing ACCIDENTALLY! "Honey, I'd like you to meet Graham from imdb2, he's got some amusing anecodotes for you. Oh and here's a gun so you can blow your brains out. You'll thank me for it." I could tolerate any insurance seminar. For days I could sit there and listen to them go on and on with a big smile on my face. They'd say, "How can you stand it?" I'd say, "'Cause I've been with Graham from imdb2. I can take ANYTHING." You know what they'd say? They'd say, "I know what you mean. The imdb2 atheist guy. Woah." It's like going on a date with a Chatty Cathy doll. I expect you have a little string on your chest, you know, that I pull out and have to snap back. Except I wouldn't pull it out and snap it back - you would. Agh! Agh! Agh! Agh! And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea - have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener! I thought the point was obvious. Here's the Janet and John version for you : Cody, when you said you don't like to hurt people's feelings, you were telling a lie. You do like to hurt people's feelings. Or at least, you like to try.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 27, 2018 14:38:27 GMT
You know everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You're a miracle! Your stories have NONE of that. They're not even amusing ACCIDENTALLY! "Honey, I'd like you to meet Graham from imdb2, he's got some amusing anecodotes for you. Oh and here's a gun so you can blow your brains out. You'll thank me for it." I could tolerate any insurance seminar. For days I could sit there and listen to them go on and on with a big smile on my face. They'd say, "How can you stand it?" I'd say, "'Cause I've been with Graham from imdb2. I can take ANYTHING." You know what they'd say? They'd say, "I know what you mean. The imdb2 atheist guy. Woah." It's like going on a date with a Chatty Cathy doll. I expect you have a little string on your chest, you know, that I pull out and have to snap back. Except I wouldn't pull it out and snap it back - you would. Agh! Agh! Agh! Agh! And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea - have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener! I thought the point was obvious. Here's the Janet and John version for you : Cody, when you said you don't like to hurt people's feelings, you were telling a lie. You do like to hurt people's feelings. Or at least, you like to try. If I wanted a joke, I'd follow you into the john and watch you take a leak. Now you got anything useful to say or are you gonna stand there like a slab of meat with mittens?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 15:20:30 GMT
I thought the point was obvious. Here's the Janet and John version for you : Cody, when you said you don't like to hurt people's feelings, you were telling a lie. You do like to hurt people's feelings. Or at least, you like to try. If I wanted a joke, I'd follow you into the john and watch you take a leak. Now you got anything useful to say or are you gonna stand there like a slab of meat with mittens? Nice of you to prove me correct and show that you were indeed lying. Thanks, I appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 27, 2018 15:51:03 GMT
If I wanted a joke, I'd follow you into the john and watch you take a leak. Now you got anything useful to say or are you gonna stand there like a slab of meat with mittens? Nice of you to prove me correct and show that you were indeed lying. Thanks, I appreciate it. Eh, look, I don't want to be rude, but I'm not much of a conversationalist, and I really want to finish this article, a friend of mine wrote it, so...
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 27, 2018 16:50:12 GMT
How did he create day and night before he created the sun?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 17:50:42 GMT
Nice of you to prove me correct and show that you were indeed lying. Thanks, I appreciate it. Eh, look, I don't want to be rude Sure you do.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 28, 2018 15:16:00 GMT
Or that the very early universe was...empty. It was anything but empty if one believes the various version of the big bang theories. She meant empty of matter. Hence the reason she says “there was no matter” I have read and heard physicist's descriptions of the very earliest moments of what's known as the big bang when the universe, or the arrangement of the universe we know about was expanding. I think it is ANYTHING by empty. It was incredibly dense and hot. And I think it's pretty clear that what the writer(s) of Genesis were thinking is that the earth was formed...ie existed, created by God and that IT...the earth was void (empty) and without form (nothing existed on the earth). They weren't thinking that there was nothing...they were thinking there was the earth, but God hadn't created anything...any forms... ON it yet.
But let's say, for argument sake that what is described in Genesis IS a fairly accurate match with what scientists have described as the big bang. What do you think it suggests?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 28, 2018 17:53:51 GMT
She meant empty of matter. Hence the reason she says “there was no matter” I have read and heard physicist's descriptions of the very earliest moments of what's known as the big bang when the universe, or the arrangement of the universe we know about was expanding. I think it is ANYTHING by empty. It was incredibly dense and hot. And I think it's pretty clear that what the writer(s) of Genesis were thinking is that the earth was formed...ie existed, created by God and that IT...the earth was void (empty) and without form (nothing existed on the earth). They weren't thinking that there was nothing...they were thinking there was the earth, but God hadn't created anything...any forms... ON it yet.
But let's say, for argument sake that what is described in Genesis IS a fairly accurate match with what scientists have described as the big bang. What do you think it suggests? Did you miss the bit where she acknowledges that “only the energy of quantum fluctuations existed.”?
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 28, 2018 18:03:59 GMT
She meant empty of matter. Hence the reason she says “there was no matter” I have read and heard physicist's descriptions of the very earliest moments of what's known as the big bang when the universe, or the arrangement of the universe we know about was expanding. I think it is ANYTHING by empty. It was incredibly dense and hot. And I think it's pretty clear that what the writer(s) of Genesis were thinking is that the earth was formed...ie existed, created by God and that IT...the earth was void (empty) and without form (nothing existed on the earth). They weren't thinking that there was nothing...they were thinking there was the earth, but God hadn't created anything...any forms... ON it yet.
But let's say, for argument sake that what is described in Genesis IS a fairly accurate match with what scientists have described as the big bang. What do you think it suggests? It's obvious what it suggests? Actually, what it says. God worked from outside of the Universe. I'm on the Gnostic side here and see the pathetic laws of Physics and Nature all designed for decay and entropy, and see the enemy creating the physical Universe. However, that's explained in Genesis. God initiated a better design of positive influence, and the "fall" enabled the enemy to come in like a Bundy and muck it up with continual and continuous hate and negativity, including the very laws of Nature, which explains why Jesus entered the Universe at great risk, since the rules of the game were made by the enemy and it was a stacked deck. But whichever entity did what, the fact is that the empty space outside of the Universe, is something unknown. The Bible does say that a day is like a thousand years unto the lord, which certainly does say that even Time is on a one dimensional view to God, and he sees the Universe in Eternity, alpha and omega. The big bang itself can be analyzed as similar to the creation in Genesis. There's nothing of disagreement between them, since Time is described as one dimensional to God.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 28, 2018 20:57:22 GMT
I have read and heard physicist's descriptions of the very earliest moments of what's known as the big bang when the universe, or the arrangement of the universe we know about was expanding. I think it is ANYTHING by empty. It was incredibly dense and hot. And I think it's pretty clear that what the writer(s) of Genesis were thinking is that the earth was formed...ie existed, created by God and that IT...the earth was void (empty) and without form (nothing existed on the earth). They weren't thinking that there was nothing...they were thinking there was the earth, but God hadn't created anything...any forms... ON it yet.
But let's say, for argument sake that what is described in Genesis IS a fairly accurate match with what scientists have described as the big bang. What do you think it suggests? It's obvious what it suggests? Actually, what it says. God worked from outside of the Universe. I'm on the Gnostic side here and see the pathetic laws of Physics and Nature all designed for decay and entropy, and see the enemy creating the physical Universe. However, that's explained in Genesis. God initiated a better design of positive influence, and the "fall" enabled the enemy to come in like a Bundy and muck it up with continual and continuous hate and negativity, including the very laws of Nature, which explains why Jesus entered the Universe at great risk, since the rules of the game were made by the enemy and it was a stacked deck. But whichever entity did what, the fact is that the empty space outside of the Universe, is something unknown. The Bible does say that a day is like a thousand years unto the lord, which certainly does say that even Time is on a one dimensional view to God, and he sees the Universe in Eternity, alpha and omega. The big bang itself can be analyzed as similar to the creation in Genesis. There's nothing of disagreement between them, since Time is described as one dimensional to God. I love having you on here! You are our very own fantasy fiction writer!
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 28, 2018 21:18:34 GMT
I have read and heard physicist's descriptions of the very earliest moments of what's known as the big bang when the universe, or the arrangement of the universe we know about was expanding. I think it is ANYTHING by empty. It was incredibly dense and hot. And I think it's pretty clear that what the writer(s) of Genesis were thinking is that the earth was formed...ie existed, created by God and that IT...the earth was void (empty) and without form (nothing existed on the earth). They weren't thinking that there was nothing...they were thinking there was the earth, but God hadn't created anything...any forms... ON it yet.
But let's say, for argument sake that what is described in Genesis IS a fairly accurate match with what scientists have described as the big bang. What do you think it suggests? Did you miss the bit where she acknowledges that “only the energy of quantum fluctuations existed.”? It still isn't empty. Void...as she is using it, suggests empty...lacking anything. Not just lacking matter. It was so dense, they conjecture that even photons couldn't "move" through it.
But regardless, address the second point.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 28, 2018 21:22:29 GMT
I have read and heard physicist's descriptions of the very earliest moments of what's known as the big bang when the universe, or the arrangement of the universe we know about was expanding. I think it is ANYTHING by empty. It was incredibly dense and hot. And I think it's pretty clear that what the writer(s) of Genesis were thinking is that the earth was formed...ie existed, created by God and that IT...the earth was void (empty) and without form (nothing existed on the earth). They weren't thinking that there was nothing...they were thinking there was the earth, but God hadn't created anything...any forms... ON it yet.
But let's say, for argument sake that what is described in Genesis IS a fairly accurate match with what scientists have described as the big bang. What do you think it suggests? It's obvious what it suggests? Actually, what it says. God worked from outside of the Universe. I'm on the Gnostic side here and see the pathetic laws of Physics and Nature all designed for decay and entropy, and see the enemy creating the physical Universe. However, that's explained in Genesis. God initiated a better design of positive influence, and the "fall" enabled the enemy to come in like a Bundy and muck it up with continual and continuous hate and negativity, including the very laws of Nature, which explains why Jesus entered the Universe at great risk, since the rules of the game were made by the enemy and it was a stacked deck. But whichever entity did what, the fact is that the empty space outside of the Universe, is something unknown. The Bible does say that a day is like a thousand years unto the lord, which certainly does say that even Time is on a one dimensional view to God, and he sees the Universe in Eternity, alpha and omega. The big bang itself can be analyzed as similar to the creation in Genesis. There's nothing of disagreement between them, since Time is described as one dimensional to God. Granted, the writers attribute thus and so and this and that to God. But the suggestion is, as I understand the op, that in order for them to have known...if indeed they DID know something of how the universe started, it must've been a God that provided the info. And my contention is taht even IF they were accurately describing how this expanding phase of the natural universe universe actually started, there are other explanations for why they described the universe's origin the way they did.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 28, 2018 23:07:31 GMT
It's obvious what it suggests? Actually, what it says. God worked from outside of the Universe. I'm on the Gnostic side here and see the pathetic laws of Physics and Nature all designed for decay and entropy, and see the enemy creating the physical Universe. However, that's explained in Genesis. God initiated a better design of positive influence, and the "fall" enabled the enemy to come in like a Bundy and muck it up with continual and continuous hate and negativity, including the very laws of Nature, which explains why Jesus entered the Universe at great risk, since the rules of the game were made by the enemy and it was a stacked deck. But whichever entity did what, the fact is that the empty space outside of the Universe, is something unknown. The Bible does say that a day is like a thousand years unto the lord, which certainly does say that even Time is on a one dimensional view to God, and he sees the Universe in Eternity, alpha and omega. The big bang itself can be analyzed as similar to the creation in Genesis. There's nothing of disagreement between them, since Time is described as one dimensional to God. Granted, the writers attribute thus and so and this and that to God. But the suggestion is, as I understand the op, that in order for them to have known...if indeed they DID know something of how the universe started, it must've been a God that provided the info. And my contention is taht even IF they were accurately describing how this expanding phase of the natural universe universe actually started, there are other explanations for why they described the universe's origin the way they did. You speak more coherently, and with better communication skills, than most atheists and agnostics here. You certainly make your point, and I can find no fault with it. You lay open possibilities from a Socratic standpoint, with an open mind. At least on this point you do.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 28, 2018 23:36:20 GMT
Did you miss the bit where she acknowledges that “only the energy of quantum fluctuations existed.”? It still isn't empty. Void...as she is using it, suggests empty...lacking anything. Not just lacking matter. It was so dense, they conjecture that even photons couldn't "move" through it.
But regardless, address the second point. Where does she say void? I’ve already explained the way in which she uses empty is specifically in the context of lacking any matter. This so obvious what she means. You really believe an astrophysicist is going to assert that the universe was completely void and then contradict herself in the same sentence?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 29, 2018 0:26:42 GMT
It still isn't empty. Void...as she is using it, suggests empty...lacking anything. Not just lacking matter. It was so dense, they conjecture that even photons couldn't "move" through it.
But regardless, address the second point. Where does she say void? I’ve already explained the way in which she uses empty is specifically in the context of lacking any matter. This so obvious what she means. You really believe an astrophysicist is going to assert that the universe was completely void and then contradict herself in the same sentence? The bible says void. She says extremely empty. I dn't care what she is, there is no way anyone can interpret the extremely dense state in the initial stages of the expanding universe as "empty" whether they mean devoid of matter or whatever. But regardless, address the second point.
|
|