Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

xyzzy



    Posts: 138
  • Darwins +48/-0

1.Elements, amino acids
2.life giving elements super condensed
3.when it started
4.everything possible
5.love us
6.Physics, Chemistry
7.Logic, logic, logic

1) Well, JB, this tells us that this god is not supernatural, and we should be able to detect it. So why can't we? Also, unfortunately, none of those things were present at the time of the big bang.

2) No, we know that isn't true (a) for the initial conditions and (b) it does not fit with any of the cosmological theories that are based on observation, science, and - frankly - reality.

3) No, we know that isn't true. At all. See and (1) and (2)

4) again, you are taking a position, working backwards, and inserting a god to suit your needs.

5) I see... and you know this how? I know it's what you want to believe.

6) No, see 1,2, and 3

7) We disagree on what logic is then. Logic isn't forcing things into holes where they don't fit.

Quote
Look I'm not Einstein, I just had the idea a few weeks ago.  Things like that take time and lots and lots of money.  hummm I do need a new career! lol

I'm not Einstein either - nice to meet you. However, you are claiming something is possible, you are stating it happened at (x) but nothing that we know supports your contention. In fact, all evidence points against that.

junebug, I understand this may seem harsh, I'm not trying to be so. But how on earth do you expect people to respond to you when you claim "It's Possible!" then, when asked to explain how, you respond with a 2 or 3 word explanation that flies in the face of known science?

I already tried to give you examples of things that are "possible" but so unlikely we can assume that they won't occur. We need to focus on what is probable or likely. Otherwise we can all just exclaim "it's possible" and spend our lives arguing about the why-nots. In this case, we are into the territory of reversing the burden of proof. You would need new physics and new chemistry for the above to work. Possible? Sure, if you mean as possible as I am writing this from the back of a Unicorn and beaming my thoughts direct to the server via telepathy. That's "possible" isn't it, JB?

You said it's a new idea, I can respect that. I would suggest that if you really think it's possible that you spend some time learning what we already know in cosmology (I don't mean the thumbnail sketch), at that point you'll understand why it's not, or you'll be able to articulate this new science that supports your claim.

Your explanation, to be taken seriously, needs to explain all that we know now, in as much or more detail as we currently possess, and it needs a way to be tested and shown to be more accurate than any other approach. Sorry, about that, but reality cares as little about what I want to believe as it does about you, and everyone else. That you don't have the money or resources is a common rebuttal from the making-things-up-crowd who, for example, propose speculative science to support Homeopathy but there's always a reason why it can't be tested and so on. Funny how that happens.

You see, I strongly get the impression that this belief of yours is important to you. So important that you keep looking for ways to turn it from a belief into a fact. But, the approach of just batting away rejections and going off and making up another scenario, and another, won't help you.

In other threads you have mentioned how you won't let your beliefs be taken away from you. Well, I'm down with that and, as my theist friends will attest, it's something I simply don't wish to do. However, once you or them start telling me that their beliefs are supported by science, then I do the same thing I do with any discussion on "science".

At that point I want to understand this new-thingy. I'll ask questions. If my understanding conflicts with theirs, I'll ask more questions; perhaps my understanding is wrong and that's a learning experience. However, inserting speculative versions of "science" tailor-made to fit a particular need, ones that contradict with what we know, ones that have no support for them, not even a working model, then we jump into the realms of pseudoscience which is usually stuff people make up specifically to shore up a belief masquerading as a fact.

Here, with the greatest respect, it's unfortunate but you don't seem to understand the science behind what you claim. It is, after all, complicated. How you proceed from here, though, that's up to you.
Changed Change Reason Date
Traveler clear and respectful January 08, 2014, 06:53:38 PM
Anfauglir For patience. January 09, 2014, 05:32:45 AM