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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (9531)	11/8/2010 2:48:54 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"It is not about my happiness. It is about stopping your squirming..." You're imagining things. I have been clear from the beginning. "And please do not pretend to educate me on the history of any philosophical argument.." Get over yourself. You have intimated that an ancient argument is a recent development by Craig. <<<I did not cut and paste that from Craig>>> "Of course, you did" You're a liar, but then we already knew that. "Does everything include the universe?" <<<"Yes, but the universe does not include everything.">>> "In other words, you are not using the philosophical and scientific definition of "universe" as "the totality of all that exists". Rather, you have changed it to being a subset of the set of "everything". If everything includes the universe then the universe is merely a part of everything and not ALL of everything." Nice try but I have been talking strictly about the physical Universe from the beginning and that has been crystal clear. Your question was poorly worded and stupid. Still is. Interestingly, you were not interested in the definition of Pederast when you were encouraging and defending the practice. "So now we have (still strictly on YOUR assertion, and not through any logic) that: The universe had a beginning" No Ive pointed quite clearly to the principle of causality employed by cosmologists to logically deduce that the universe had a beginning. Denying the principle of causality would make all science impossible. You want to affirm and deny the principle of causality depending on which is advantageous to your position at the moment. "Whatever the universe is a part of had a beginning." I didn't say that: you did. "So again, by following your assertions, we now are asked to believe that time exists prior to all these "caused" events because that is precisely what "antecedent" means--prior in TIME." As I said I have no firm position on the nature of time whether it is merely descriptive or not. Do you know for sure that time does not exist outside of the physical universe? "while allowing you to pretend that science can make categorical statements about ultimate questions regarding the universe..." Ah you poor thing, you don't realize that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't think science can make statements about ultimate reality then you should give up all scientific basis for your fundamentalist material philosophy and admit that it is supported by nothing more than your bigoted prejudice. "I certainly will not permit you to pretend to know whether or not anything outside our universe..." Nobody is asking for or needs your approval! "So not only is your original premise now negated by taking itself outside of the universe..." That's false "(never mind such as yours with those hind parts referred to in the bible) were even allowed to show their heads." You're quite the filthy little bigot. "Short and sweet:" No: there's nothing short or sweet about your ranting and ravings. "Having dealt with that matter I now present you with Dr. Quentin Smith arguing very persuasively that the BB had no cause." It's nice to know that you believe that effects do not need a cause and that you deny the principle of causality. We can now discount anything scientific you put forth as a just so story on your part.