Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (153995)	2/5/2009 6:20:47 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"historical that may be verifiable." I wouldn't advise Brumar to discuss things historical and verifiable with someone like you, who is hysterical and certifiable and probably falling into another stupor with his buddy who is quite stupidor. Brumar is free to do as he pleases of course. btw what do you consider historically verifiable short of being there? I doubt anyone would verify yourstory, including those who are here, let alone your versions of history.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (153995)	2/5/2009 6:33:17 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

The multiuniverse concept is a daydream Yep. The scientist(s) proposing the theory in papers are clearly more qualified I'm sure they have a big IQ, but they have no real support for saying this daydream is real. Which they admit. I personally have an easier task imagining more than one universe which is proven RU suggesting its proven there is more than one? Sorry, no.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (153995)	2/5/2009 6:49:16 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	3 Recommendations Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 173976

It never ceases to amaze me that people make those kinds of arguments: The universe is so unlikely, so complex, so hard to comprehend... Therefore God. Yet they never consider how unlikely is God, how complex, how hard to understand. Isn't it irrational to believe in something as unlikely and incomprehensible as God? Somehow they're comfortable never asking those questions, as if that's a point in their favor. God doesn't require a beginning, or a purpose, or objective morality. Everything that exists requires these things they argue. God has none of these things. And that's an argument for God's existence? It's absurd really. SD