In another thread attempting to encourage people to think realitistically about the possibility of God's existence--which btw no one else appears willing to even attempt--people have tried to argue with one of the most basic things about it:
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else. If not a very much technologically advanced alien, HOW do people want others to believe God could possibly be a technologically inferior native of Earth?
A better question is how could God possibly be an Alien?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 12:37 PM)
In another thread attempting to encourage people to think realitistically about the possibility of God's existence--which btw no one else appears willing to even attempt--people have tried to argue with one of the most basic things about it:
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else. If not a very much technologically advanced alien, HOW do people want others to believe God could possibly be a technologically inferior native of Earth?
I think the problem is that nobobdy but you defines 'God' the way you do.
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else. If not a very much technologically advanced alien, HOW do people want others to believe God could possibly be a technologically inferior native of Earth?
I think the problem is that nobobdy but you defines 'God' the way you do.
Its like asking..
How could a Unicorn possibly be...a horse without a stick tied to its head?
(I don't think you will get it though)
How could a Unicorn possibly be...a horse without a stick tied to its head?
(I don't think you will get it though)
Since you use a definition for the word god that no one else uses, then you're gonna have to knock your own strawman down.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 13 2009, 05:51 PM)
A better question is how could God possibly be an Alien?
By not being a native of this planet.
By not being a native of this planet.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 13 2009, 06:06 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else. If not a very much technologically advanced alien, HOW do people want others to believe God could possibly be a technologically inferior native of Earth?
But nobody has suggested that except you.
Again, it all comes down to your idiosyncratic definition of God. You have a definition of God which nobody else agrees with, and then you provide an antithetical definition which you claim others hold and with which you disagree. But NOBODY here agrees with either definition you supply. So you are simply arguing with yourself.
I think that there may be a confusion here. God was the...whatever...that created the universe. However way back then the universe wasn't much more than the Earth, moon, sun and stars. The Earth being flat and at the center of it all. Thus, knowing what we know now, God was simply the creator of our solar system with the exception of the stars. Although the stars we can see are not the only stars that exist in the universe but simply the ones we can see.
Could have an advanced alien race create all this? Your talking some really heavy scifi.
Especially since some of the stars are the other planets in our solar system while others are whole galaxies. Some are nebulae. Then there are all the other things we can detect like black holes and dark matter. The problem other people are having is that aliens would simply be co-occupants of this same universe and they would then have to be created too. So God would have to be something else.
However.....
What if the universe is much more than what we can detect? What if our universe is inside another, bigger universe? Then an alien race advanced enough could have created ours. They could then be mistaken for what we refer to as God, although they wouldn't be a God. After all, where did they come from?
That I think is the issue. It sounds to me that you are implying that the God we read about in the bible could really have been just an alien but other people here seem to think that you are simply saying that God is not a God but simply an alien. Unless that is what your saying after all in which case....
1. Disregard last; and
2. Where did this alien or alien race come from?
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else. If not a very much technologically advanced alien, HOW do people want others to believe God could possibly be a technologically inferior native of Earth?
I think the problem is that nobobdy but you defines 'God' the way you do.
That's a different subject. Since a number of people apparently believe God could somehow be thechnologically inferior and also a native of this planet, and are critical of me for pointing out how incredibly unlikely that idea is, I'm trying to get some of them to explain HOW!!! they think the idea could possibly be the case.
Do they expect me to just take their word for that idea which seems extremely unlikely and unrealistic to begin with, and which they can't even begin to attempt to back up? How could I, when they don't provide anything to consider?
That's a different subject. Since a number of people apparently believe God could somehow be thechnologically inferior and also a native of this planet, and are critical of me for pointing out how incredibly unlikely that idea is, I'm trying to get some of them to explain HOW!!! they think the idea could possibly be the case.
Do they expect me to just take their word for that idea which seems extremely unlikely and unrealistic to begin with, and which they can't even begin to attempt to back up? How could I, when they don't provide anything to consider?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 07:22 PM)
By not being a native of this planet.
But space aliens are not omnipotent.
Therefore space aliens can not be God.
But space aliens are not omnipotent.
Therefore space aliens can not be God.
QUOTE
Since a number of people apparently believe God could somehow be thechnologically inferior and also a native of this planet, and are critical of me for pointing out how incredibly unlikely that idea is, I'm trying to get some of them to explain HOW
But nobody has suggested that except you.
Again, it all comes down to your idiosyncratic definition of God. You have a definition of God which nobody else agrees with, and then you provide an antithetical definition which you claim others hold and with which you disagree. But NOBODY here agrees with either definition you supply. So you are simply arguing with yourself.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 05:37 PM)
In another thread attempting to encourage people to think realitistically about the possibility of God's existence--which btw no one else appears willing to even attempt--people have tried to argue with one of the most basic things about it:
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else. If not a very much technologically advanced alien, HOW do people want others to believe God could possibly be a technologically inferior native of Earth?
It's not true no one has explained how he could possibly be anything else.
I told you he could be non-existent.
You say "If God exists he is an alien."
Another way to say it is " for God to exist, he must be an alien."
That leads to can an alien be God?
God is omnipotent, aliens are not, Therefore aliens can not be God.
Therefore God does not exist. If you follow your logic without changing the definition of God.
You might want to switch to asking "was yahweh really a space alien?".
But if the answer to that is yes, then yahweh was not God.
You are more atheist than I am.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by weak agnostic.
You are not sure if you don't know?
You don't know if you don't know?
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else. If not a very much technologically advanced alien, HOW do people want others to believe God could possibly be a technologically inferior native of Earth?
It's not true no one has explained how he could possibly be anything else.
I told you he could be non-existent.
You say "If God exists he is an alien."
Another way to say it is " for God to exist, he must be an alien."
That leads to can an alien be God?
God is omnipotent, aliens are not, Therefore aliens can not be God.
Therefore God does not exist. If you follow your logic without changing the definition of God.
You might want to switch to asking "was yahweh really a space alien?".
But if the answer to that is yes, then yahweh was not God.
You are more atheist than I am.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by weak agnostic.
You are not sure if you don't know?
You don't know if you don't know?
QUOTE
By not being a native of this planet.
I think that there may be a confusion here. God was the...whatever...that created the universe. However way back then the universe wasn't much more than the Earth, moon, sun and stars. The Earth being flat and at the center of it all. Thus, knowing what we know now, God was simply the creator of our solar system with the exception of the stars. Although the stars we can see are not the only stars that exist in the universe but simply the ones we can see.
Could have an advanced alien race create all this? Your talking some really heavy scifi.
Especially since some of the stars are the other planets in our solar system while others are whole galaxies. Some are nebulae. Then there are all the other things we can detect like black holes and dark matter. The problem other people are having is that aliens would simply be co-occupants of this same universe and they would then have to be created too. So God would have to be something else.
However.....
What if the universe is much more than what we can detect? What if our universe is inside another, bigger universe? Then an alien race advanced enough could have created ours. They could then be mistaken for what we refer to as God, although they wouldn't be a God. After all, where did they come from?
That I think is the issue. It sounds to me that you are implying that the God we read about in the bible could really have been just an alien but other people here seem to think that you are simply saying that God is not a God but simply an alien. Unless that is what your saying after all in which case....
1. Disregard last; and
2. Where did this alien or alien race come from?
nopEda,
What are you really looking for?
No need to answer because I will not believe you anyway.
What are you really looking for?
No need to answer because I will not believe you anyway.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 13 2009, 07:41 PM)
But space aliens are not omnipotent.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
But nobody has suggested that except you.
Again, it all comes down to your idiosyncratic definition of God. You have a definition of God which nobody else agrees with, and then you provide an antithetical definition which you claim others hold and with which you disagree. But NOBODY here agrees with either definition you supply.
I point out that if God exists he is almost certainly a technologically advanced alien. Other people disagree, and since the only alternative would be that he is an inferior native of Earth, that's all those who disagree are left with. It's not my fault, but that's certainly the way it is!!!
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Therefore space aliens can not be God.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 13 2009, 09:19 PM)
But nobody has suggested that except you.
Again, it all comes down to your idiosyncratic definition of God. You have a definition of God which nobody else agrees with, and then you provide an antithetical definition which you claim others hold and with which you disagree. But NOBODY here agrees with either definition you supply.
I point out that if God exists he is almost certainly a technologically advanced alien. Other people disagree, and since the only alternative would be that he is an inferior native of Earth, that's all those who disagree are left with. It's not my fault, but that's certainly the way it is!!!
QUOTE (AlexG+)
So you are simply arguing with yourself.
I'm pointing out that those who disagree can't even provide an alternative to consider.
I'm pointing out that those who disagree can't even provide an alternative to consider.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 13 2009, 11:18 PM)
It's not true no one has explained how he could possibly be anything else.
I told you he could be non-existent.
Now you need to try explaining how if God exists, he could be non-existent as well as how he could be a technologically inferior native of Earth.
I told you he could be non-existent.
Now you need to try explaining how if God exists, he could be non-existent as well as how he could be a technologically inferior native of Earth. QUOTE (buttershug+)
You say "If God exists he is an alien."
Another way to say it is " for God to exist, he must be an alien."
That leads to can an alien be God?
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Another way to say it is " for God to exist, he must be an alien."
That leads to can an alien be God?
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
God is omnipotent,
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
aliens are not, Therefore aliens can not be God.
Therefore God does not exist. If you follow your logic without changing the definition of God.
You might want to switch to asking "was yahweh really a space alien?".
But if the answer to that is yes, then yahweh was not God.
You are more atheist than I am.
How atheist do you think you are? If you believe God does not exist can you admit your faith in your belief, or do you feel the need to try denying it as many supposedly strong atheists want to attempt to do?
Therefore God does not exist. If you follow your logic without changing the definition of God.
You might want to switch to asking "was yahweh really a space alien?".
But if the answer to that is yes, then yahweh was not God.
You are more atheist than I am.
How atheist do you think you are? If you believe God does not exist can you admit your faith in your belief, or do you feel the need to try denying it as many supposedly strong atheists want to attempt to do?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by weak agnostic.
You are not sure if you don't know?
You don't know if you don't know?
_________________________________________________________
Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative
agnosticism), according to Graham Oppy, is "the view which
is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for
reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question
of God's existence."[1]
Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in
which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods
is unknowable to humanity.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
You are not sure if you don't know?
You don't know if you don't know?
_________________________________________________________
Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative
agnosticism), according to Graham Oppy, is "the view which
is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for
reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question
of God's existence."[1]
Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in
which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods
is unknowable to humanity.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 11:33 PM)
Now you need to try explaining how if God exists, he could be non-existent as well as how he could be a technologically inferior native of Earth.
That is the single dumbest thing I've read on this forum today. Congrats, ya friggan mo...
That is the single dumbest thing I've read on this forum today. Congrats, ya friggan mo...
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 11:08 PM)
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
Therefore, a realistic discussion of god is not possible.
Glad we settled that.
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
Therefore, a realistic discussion of god is not possible.
Glad we settled that.
QUOTE (H2O+May 14 2009, 12:58 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
By not being a native of this planet.
I think that there may be a confusion here.
There must be. I point out that if God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien and obviously there are those who wish they could argue against the observation, but they can't explain how they think he could possibly be the only alternative which is a native of this planet. The fact that they can't attempt to back up what they're trying to claim could be viewed as confusion, and in fact I do view it as that and possibly worse.
I think that there may be a confusion here.
There must be. I point out that if God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien and obviously there are those who wish they could argue against the observation, but they can't explain how they think he could possibly be the only alternative which is a native of this planet. The fact that they can't attempt to back up what they're trying to claim could be viewed as confusion, and in fact I do view it as that and possibly worse.
QUOTE (H2O+)
God was the...whatever...that created the universe. However way back then the universe wasn't much more than the Earth, moon, sun and stars. The Earth being flat and at the center of it all.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
QUOTE (H2O+)
Thus, knowing what we know now, God was simply the creator of our solar system with the exception of the stars. Although the stars we can see are not the only stars that exist in the universe but simply the ones we can see.
Could have an advanced alien race create all this? Your talking some really heavy scifi.
It's theoretical physics, but that's what real scifi is, so you have shared a good and nice point.
Thank you. If a being or beings created the results of the big band which we consider to be our universe, then there it is.
Could have an advanced alien race create all this? Your talking some really heavy scifi.
It's theoretical physics, but that's what real scifi is, so you have shared a good and nice point.
Thank you. If a being or beings created the results of the big band which we consider to be our universe, then there it is.QUOTE (H2O+)
Especially since some of the stars are the other planets in our solar system while others are whole galaxies. Some are nebulae. Then there are all the other things we can detect like black holes and dark matter. The problem other people are having is that aliens would simply be co-occupants of this same universe and they would then have to be created too. So God would have to be something else.
He would still have to be an alien, even if every other person on Earth hates the fact except for me.
He would still have to be an alien, even if every other person on Earth hates the fact except for me.
QUOTE (H2O+)
However.....
What if the universe is much more than what we can detect? What if our universe is inside another, bigger universe? Then an alien race advanced enough could have created ours. They could then be mistaken for what we refer to as God, although they wouldn't be a God.
To me if they have deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet or planets they are not native to they could be considered gods. Notice that one of the main things people seem to be opposed to is the suggestion that God is not native to a planet that he created. There is a definite weirdness to that idea...
What if the universe is much more than what we can detect? What if our universe is inside another, bigger universe? Then an alien race advanced enough could have created ours. They could then be mistaken for what we refer to as God, although they wouldn't be a God.
To me if they have deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet or planets they are not native to they could be considered gods. Notice that one of the main things people seem to be opposed to is the suggestion that God is not native to a planet that he created. There is a definite weirdness to that idea...
QUOTE (H2O+)
After all, where did they come from?
That I think is the issue. It sounds to me that you are implying that the God we read about in the bible could really have been just an alien but other people here seem to think that you are simply saying that God is not a God but simply an alien. Unless that is what your saying after all in which case....
1. Disregard last; and
2. Where did this alien or alien race come from?
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
That I think is the issue. It sounds to me that you are implying that the God we read about in the bible could really have been just an alien but other people here seem to think that you are simply saying that God is not a God but simply an alien. Unless that is what your saying after all in which case....
1. Disregard last; and
2. Where did this alien or alien race come from?
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 14 2009, 03:16 AM)
nopEda,
What are you really looking for?
Other people who try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence.
What are you really looking for?
Other people who try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 12:15 AM)
Other people who try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence.
I don't believe you.
I don't believe you.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 04:08 AM)
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
Since those terms define what God is, it's unrealistic to say God exists.
You are the worst kind of an Athiest. You claim to want a reasonable discussion but refuse to even start one. You don't believe in a Diety but won't admit you don't believe in God. You change the word to something you do believe in.
And furthermore you are a wanna Theist but only on your terms.
You claim a weak agnostic is someone who can suspend belief and that you are one. But you won't consider God not existing.
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
Since those terms define what God is, it's unrealistic to say God exists.
You are the worst kind of an Athiest. You claim to want a reasonable discussion but refuse to even start one. You don't believe in a Diety but won't admit you don't believe in God. You change the word to something you do believe in.
And furthermore you are a wanna Theist but only on your terms.
You claim a weak agnostic is someone who can suspend belief and that you are one. But you won't consider God not existing.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 12:15 AM)
Other people who try to think realistically about the possibility of God's aliens existence.
Fixed
Fixed
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 11:17 PM)
I point out that if God exists he is almost certainly a technologically advanced alien.
And I point out that you are the ONLY one to believe that idea.
And I point out that you are the ONLY one to believe that idea.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 14 2009, 06:18 PM)
Fixed
QUOTE (nopEda+)
How Could God Aliens Possibly Be..., a n inferior native of this planet?
There...fixed that too. Just a few more to go. This is fun.
There...fixed that too. Just a few more to go. This is fun.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 14 2009, 09:01 AM)
I don't believe you.
You can't think about it at all. The very idea is more than you'll ever be able to comprehend much less appreciate...at least it certainly appears that way. If you ever do learn, somehow, some day, I don't expect to see it happen.
You can't think about it at all. The very idea is more than you'll ever be able to comprehend much less appreciate...at least it certainly appears that way. If you ever do learn, somehow, some day, I don't expect to see it happen.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 14 2009, 11:31 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
Since those terms define what God is, it's unrealistic to say God exists.
You are the worst kind of an Athiest. You claim to want a reasonable discussion but refuse to even start one. You don't believe in a Diety but won't admit you don't believe in God. You change the word to something you do believe in.
And furthermore you are a wanna Theist but only on your terms.
You claim a weak agnostic is someone who can suspend belief and that you are one. But you won't consider God not existing.
Yes I do, but the concept of someone who can consider both possibilities like myself is apparently beyond you, as are a number of other things about this. You can't think realistically about the possibility of his existence, much less can you think about any of the details that would be involved, so I guess it's not a big surprise that you can't comprehend how anyone can consider both possibilities.
You are the worst kind of an Athiest. You claim to want a reasonable discussion but refuse to even start one. You don't believe in a Diety but won't admit you don't believe in God. You change the word to something you do believe in.
And furthermore you are a wanna Theist but only on your terms.
You claim a weak agnostic is someone who can suspend belief and that you are one. But you won't consider God not existing.
Yes I do, but the concept of someone who can consider both possibilities like myself is apparently beyond you, as are a number of other things about this. You can't think realistically about the possibility of his existence, much less can you think about any of the details that would be involved, so I guess it's not a big surprise that you can't comprehend how anyone can consider both possibilities.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 14 2009, 01:21 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I point out that if God exists he is almost certainly a technologically advanced alien.
It didn't take long for the megalomania to surface.
This has long since degenerated into pointless nonsense.
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
the key word....."he"
obviously you feel if you need a "god" it must be male.
...all "gods" ARE created.....by us earthlings...
And I point out that you are the ONLY one to believe that idea.
You do, and the funny part is even though you people don't want to believe that's what he would have to be, not a one of you can explain how you think he could be anything else. Before I started posting I was thinking maybe you people would have thought all this through long before I got here, so it's amusing in a pitifully strange way to find that none of you can even attempt to do it at all. 
You do, and the funny part is even though you people don't want to believe that's what he would have to be, not a one of you can explain how you think he could be anything else. Before I started posting I was thinking maybe you people would have thought all this through long before I got here, so it's amusing in a pitifully strange way to find that none of you can even attempt to do it at all.
I read Chariot of the Gods. It's BS.
Having said that, I suspect the universe is crawling with life - even intelligent life. I just don't see any evidence that it has ever visited our little corner of the galaxy.
Having said that, I suspect the universe is crawling with life - even intelligent life. I just don't see any evidence that it has ever visited our little corner of the galaxy.
nopEda has not used the word God or Alien in the last 3 posts. I wonder why? 
QUOTE
The very idea is more than you'll ever be able to comprehend much less appreciate
the concept of someone who can consider both possibilities like myself is apparently beyond you, as are a number of other things about this.
the concept of someone who can consider both possibilities like myself is apparently beyond you, as are a number of other things about this.
It didn't take long for the megalomania to surface.
This has long since degenerated into pointless nonsense.
QUOTE (nonSense+May 14 2009, 06:59 PM)
You do, and the funny part is even though you people don't want to believe that's what he would have to be, not a one of you can explain how you think he could be anything else.
Why would a god have to meet that specific definition? Whoooops - false dilemma, bozo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Why would a god have to meet that specific definition? Whoooops - false dilemma, bozo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 06:47 PM)
Since those terms define what God is, it's unrealistic to say God exists.
You are the worst kind of an Athiest. You claim to want a reasonable discussion but refuse to even start one. You don't believe in a Diety but won't admit you don't believe in God. You change the word to something you do believe in.
And furthermore you are a wanna Theist but only on your terms.
You claim a weak agnostic is someone who can suspend belief and that you are one. But you won't consider God not existing.[/QUOTE]
Yes I do, but the concept of someone who can consider both possibilities like myself is apparently beyond you, as are a number of other things about this. You can't think realistically about the possibility of his existence, much less can you think about any of the details that would be involved, so I guess it's not a big surprise that you can't comprehend how anyone can consider both possibilities.
You are the one that rejected an omnipotent being.
What you fail to understand is that is what God means.
If YOU reject the possibility of an omnipotent being it is YOU who is rejecting the possibilty of God's exisetence.
You are the worst kind of an Athiest. You claim to want a reasonable discussion but refuse to even start one. You don't believe in a Diety but won't admit you don't believe in God. You change the word to something you do believe in.
And furthermore you are a wanna Theist but only on your terms.
You claim a weak agnostic is someone who can suspend belief and that you are one. But you won't consider God not existing.[/QUOTE]
Yes I do, but the concept of someone who can consider both possibilities like myself is apparently beyond you, as are a number of other things about this. You can't think realistically about the possibility of his existence, much less can you think about any of the details that would be involved, so I guess it's not a big surprise that you can't comprehend how anyone can consider both possibilities.
You are the one that rejected an omnipotent being.
What you fail to understand is that is what God means.
If YOU reject the possibility of an omnipotent being it is YOU who is rejecting the possibilty of God's exisetence.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 11:37 AM)
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
the key word....."he"
obviously you feel if you need a "god" it must be male.
...all "gods" ARE created.....by us earthlings...
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 01:38 PM)
You can't think about it at all. The very idea is more than you'll ever be able to comprehend much less appreciate...at least it certainly appears that way. If you ever do learn, somehow, some day, I don't expect to see it happen.
Think about what?
Whether aliens exist?
I have watched shows and and talked to people who claimed they thought they saw a UFO.
Do I believe they exist?
I don't know but I am willing to learn. Do you have any information that I may not be aware of?
Think about what?
Whether aliens exist?
I have watched shows and and talked to people who claimed they thought they saw a UFO.
Do I believe they exist?
I don't know but I am willing to learn. Do you have any information that I may not be aware of?
nopEda,
What made you believe in aliens?
What made you believe in aliens?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else.
There are other equally improbable possibilities too. People from the future (Terminator style) with advanced technologies can be mistaken for god. That would make them natives of this planet.
Since you are into definition changing, I assume you will change the definition of Alien also to include people from the future.
There are other equally improbable possibilities too. People from the future (Terminator style) with advanced technologies can be mistaken for god. That would make them natives of this planet.
Since you are into definition changing, I assume you will change the definition of Alien also to include people from the future.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 15 2009, 11:46 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Even though some people have tried to argue against what I'm pointing out, none of them have been able to explain how he could possibly be anything else.
There are other equally improbable possibilities too. People from the future (Terminator style) with advanced technologies can be mistaken for god. That would make them natives of this planet.
Since you are into definition changing, I assume you will change the definition of Alien also to include people from the future.
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to... It's not possible in other words and the concept is just an idea people use mainly to make money, but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
There are other equally improbable possibilities too. People from the future (Terminator style) with advanced technologies can be mistaken for god. That would make them natives of this planet.
Since you are into definition changing, I assume you will change the definition of Alien also to include people from the future.
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to... It's not possible in other words and the concept is just an idea people use mainly to make money, but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
But it is realistic if you accept parallel world theories.
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to... It's not possible in other words and the concept is just an idea people use mainly to make money, but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
If you cannot understand it, it doesn't mean it is impossible.
Time travel is not impossible from a purely conceptual point of view in physics. There is no evidence to suggest that a sufficiently advanced civilization may not be able to achieve this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#T...past_in_physics
There are other equally improbable possibilities too. People from the future (Terminator style) with advanced technologies can be mistaken for god. That would make them natives of this planet.
Since you are into definition changing, I assume you will change the definition of Alien also to include people from the future.
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to... It's not possible in other words and the concept is just an idea people use mainly to make money, but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 11:53 AM)
QUOTE (vkamath @ May 15 2009+ 11:46 AM)
There are other equally improbable possibilities too. People from the future (Terminator style) with advanced technologies can be mistaken for god. That would make them natives of this planet.
Since you are into definition changing, I assume you will change the definition of Alien also to include people from the future.
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to... It's not possible in other words and the concept is just an idea people use mainly to make money, but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
But it is realistic if you accept parallel world theories.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 04:53 PM)
but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
But what about things that are impossible to achieve?
In those cases thinking realistically is to admit that they are impossible.
But what about things that are impossible to achieve?
In those cases thinking realistically is to admit that they are impossible.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 10:23 PM)
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to... It's not possible in other words and the concept is just an idea people use mainly to make money, but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
If you cannot understand it, it doesn't mean it is impossible.Time travel is not impossible from a purely conceptual point of view in physics. There is no evidence to suggest that a sufficiently advanced civilization may not be able to achieve this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#T...past_in_physics
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 14 2009, 07:13 PM)
Why would a god have to meet that specific definition?
He may not have to, but it's the only one that any of us can imagine and you can only imagine that one because I told you about it. You can't imagine much less suggest anything any better but I will challenge you to try.
TRY!!!:
He may not have to, but it's the only one that any of us can imagine and you can only imagine that one because I told you about it. You can't imagine much less suggest anything any better but I will challenge you to try.
TRY!!!:
QUOTE (vkamath+May 17 2009, 06:52 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda patiently pointed out+)
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to...
If you cannot understand it, it doesn't mean it is impossible.
Time travel is not impossible from a purely conceptual point of view in physics.
It is from a realistic point of view unless you can explain how all of the matter in the universe could physically be re-arrange back to the positions and conditions it was in at the point desired in the progression of things.
If you cannot understand it, it doesn't mean it is impossible.Time travel is not impossible from a purely conceptual point of view in physics.
It is from a realistic point of view unless you can explain how all of the matter in the universe could physically be re-arrange back to the positions and conditions it was in at the point desired in the progression of things.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
There is no evidence to suggest that a sufficiently advanced civilization may not be able to achieve this.
Yes, there is when you consider the amount of energy it would require to reconfigure all of the matter in the universe, simultaneously, including objects that are billions of light years distant from the imagined source of this incredible amount of needed energy. You're talking about not only changing the physical conditions and positions of the matter in a single star system--which would be quite an undertaking in itself--but of all the matter in the entire universe over billions of miles SIMULTANEOUSLY! And then they would have to put it all back the way it was when they "left", requiring all that energy again in order to get "back". Not likely, in other words....in fact extremely UNLIKELY.
Yes, there is when you consider the amount of energy it would require to reconfigure all of the matter in the universe, simultaneously, including objects that are billions of light years distant from the imagined source of this incredible amount of needed energy. You're talking about not only changing the physical conditions and positions of the matter in a single star system--which would be quite an undertaking in itself--but of all the matter in the entire universe over billions of miles SIMULTANEOUSLY! And then they would have to put it all back the way it was when they "left", requiring all that energy again in order to get "back". Not likely, in other words....in fact extremely UNLIKELY.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 17 2009, 05:03 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in at this point in whatever the progression is. In "the future" it will be in different conditions and positions than it is now. In order for people in the future to travel back to a previous time all the matter in the universe would somehow have to be rearrange back the way IT WAS! at point they want to travel back to... It's not possible in other words and the concept is just an idea people use mainly to make money, but you can't apply it to anything you're trying to think realistically about other than to show why it would be impossible to achieve.
But it is realistic if you accept parallel world theories.
I accept it for what it is, which is an extremely unlikely idea that is only good for making money from people who are willing to pay to be amused by it. In regards to realistic thinking it is worse than useless, to the point that it can contaminate realistic thoughts if a person allows it to. I don't, but some people might...
What I can imagine is that nopEda is really a troll who's here to yank our chains.
What I can imagine is that nopEda is really a troll who's here to yank our chains.
No, that wasn't the intention at all. The intention was to try to find other people who could think about it realistically, which means giving up impossible and even very unlikely seeming ideas. I was actually expecting some people to be able to do it, but then I have always tended to overestimate people. That's better than thinking less of them than they deserve though...I guess...though I would waste less time if I didn't expect more than people are capable of.
YOU are the people suggesting that there might be some, yet you can't explain what it is you think you're trying to talk about.
That's just a bald-faced lie.
So in other words, "I'm the only person who's right, and everyone else on this planet is wrong."
That's called Schizophrenia.
By nopEda's definition, if you disagree with him, you are not thinking realistically.
This 'discussion' is a waste of bandwidth.
YOU are the people suggesting that there might be some, yet you can't explain what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Have you really not noticed that in all the attempts to refute what I've been pointing out, not a one of you has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative? 
And you won't consider the possibility that there is no alternative including your own.
BTW do you believe in life after death?
But it is realistic if you accept parallel world theories.
I accept it for what it is, which is an extremely unlikely idea that is only good for making money from people who are willing to pay to be amused by it. In regards to realistic thinking it is worse than useless, to the point that it can contaminate realistic thoughts if a person allows it to. I don't, but some people might...
QUOTE (idiOt+May 20 2009, 07:53 PM)
He may not have to, but it's the only one that any of us can imagine and you can only imagine that one because I told you about it. You can't imagine much less suggest anything any better but I will challenge you to try.
TRY!!!:
As per usual, your entire post is rubbish.
What you've been whinging about all along is how any possible god must be a technologically advanced alien, nothing supernatural about it. And what you fail to realize, thicky, is that a god, by definition, is a supernatural being - doesn't matter if it's real or fictional, that's the definition of a supreme being. Anything below that meets the definition of god-like. Quasi-god. Faux god. Stargate god.
Understand?...No?...Didn't think you would. But hey, if you still think you're correct about it, refute me with some real logic, not your simple "You can't imagine it! Whaaaaa!" tripe.
Go on, do it. You haven't yet. And I have been waiting.
TRY!!!:
As per usual, your entire post is rubbish. What you've been whinging about all along is how any possible god must be a technologically advanced alien, nothing supernatural about it. And what you fail to realize, thicky, is that a god, by definition, is a supernatural being - doesn't matter if it's real or fictional, that's the definition of a supreme being. Anything below that meets the definition of god-like. Quasi-god. Faux god. Stargate god.
Understand?...No?...Didn't think you would. But hey, if you still think you're correct about it, refute me with some real logic, not your simple "You can't imagine it! Whaaaaa!" tripe.
Go on, do it. You haven't yet. And I have been waiting.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 03:11 PM)
It is from a realistic point of view unless you can explain how all of the matter in the universe could physically be re-arrange back to the positions and conditions it was in at the point desired in the progression of things.
This is your second "Dumbest post of the day."
Open the link vkamath gave you, dumbass.
This is your second "Dumbest post of the day."
Open the link vkamath gave you, dumbass.
QUOTE
but it's the only one that any of us can imagine and you can only imagine that one because I told you about it.
What I can imagine is that nopEda is really a troll who's here to yank our chains.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 20 2009, 09:22 PM)
What I can imagine is that nopEda is really a troll who's here to yank our chains.
No, that wasn't the intention at all. The intention was to try to find other people who could think about it realistically, which means giving up impossible and even very unlikely seeming ideas. I was actually expecting some people to be able to do it, but then I have always tended to overestimate people. That's better than thinking less of them than they deserve though...I guess...though I would waste less time if I didn't expect more than people are capable of.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 20 2009, 08:56 PM)
This is your second "Dumbest post of the day."
Open the link vkamath gave you, dumbass.
If you think there's something there that explains how all the matter in the universe can simultaneously be rearranged back to the way it was during a previous point in the progression of things then just post whatever it is you think would make it possible, dumberass. I shouldn't have to tell you to do it either now that you mention it, but instead you or your buddy should have done it to begin with.
Open the link vkamath gave you, dumbass.
If you think there's something there that explains how all the matter in the universe can simultaneously be rearranged back to the way it was during a previous point in the progression of things then just post whatever it is you think would make it possible, dumberass. I shouldn't have to tell you to do it either now that you mention it, but instead you or your buddy should have done it to begin with.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 11:39 PM)
No, that wasn't the intention at all. The intention was to try to find other people who could think about it realistically, which means giving up impossible and even very unlikely seeming ideas.
Please tell us just one other option that you would consider realistic, then. If you can only think of one option, and everyone with whom you discuss this (or even the vast majority of people with whom you discuss this) disagree with you, then it is obvious to any but the stupidest individual that you are close-minded and operating on a bias.
The fact, yes fact that the very definition of "god" precludes your interpretation should have been enough for any reasonable (read: realistic) person, but clearly you are both incapable and unwilling to consider the matter reasonably (read: realistically).
Please tell us just one other option that you would consider realistic, then. If you can only think of one option, and everyone with whom you discuss this (or even the vast majority of people with whom you discuss this) disagree with you, then it is obvious to any but the stupidest individual that you are close-minded and operating on a bias.
The fact, yes fact that the very definition of "god" precludes your interpretation should have been enough for any reasonable (read: realistic) person, but clearly you are both incapable and unwilling to consider the matter reasonably (read: realistically).
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 20 2009, 08:32 PM)
what you fail to realize, thicky, is that a god, by definition, is a supernatural being - doesn't matter if it's real or fictional, that's the definition of a supreme being.
ONLY if you can get yourself to accept that one. I can't, and it's even on the basics list:
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
ONLY if you can get yourself to accept that one. I can't, and it's even on the basics list:3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 21 2009, 04:47 AM)
Please tell us just one other option that you would consider realistic, then. If you can only think of one option, and everyone with whom you discuss this (or even the vast majority of people with whom you discuss this) disagree with you, then it is obvious to any but the stupidest individual that you are close-minded and operating on a bias.
The fact, yes fact that the very definition of "god" precludes your interpretation should have been enough for any reasonable (read: realistic) person, but clearly you are both incapable and unwilling to consider the matter reasonably (read: realistically).
YOU are the people suggesting that there might be some, yet you can't explain what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Have you really not noticed that in all the attempts to refute what I've been pointing out, not a one of you has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative?
The fact, yes fact that the very definition of "god" precludes your interpretation should have been enough for any reasonable (read: realistic) person, but clearly you are both incapable and unwilling to consider the matter reasonably (read: realistically).
YOU are the people suggesting that there might be some, yet you can't explain what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Have you really not noticed that in all the attempts to refute what I've been pointing out, not a one of you has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 12:00 AM)
YOU are the people suggesting that there might be some, yet you can't explain what it is you think you're trying to talk about. That's just a bald-faced lie.
So in other words, "I'm the only person who's right, and everyone else on this planet is wrong."
That's called Schizophrenia.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 10:16 AM)
If you think there's something there that explains how all the matter in the universe can simultaneously be rearranged back to the way it was during a previous point in the progression of things then just post whatever it is you think would make it possible, dumberass. I shouldn't have to tell you to do it either now that you mention it, but instead you or your buddy should have done it to begin with.
It is clear you have never read or understood special relativity and general relativity. Given your mental capacity, I think it suffice to say that it is not necessary to re-arrange the matter in the Universe for time travel to be possible.
As I said before, it you don't understand it doesn't make it impossible.
It is clear you have never read or understood special relativity and general relativity. Given your mental capacity, I think it suffice to say that it is not necessary to re-arrange the matter in the Universe for time travel to be possible.
As I said before, it you don't understand it doesn't make it impossible.
QUOTE
The intention was to try to find other people who could think about it realistically,
By nopEda's definition, if you disagree with him, you are not thinking realistically.
This 'discussion' is a waste of bandwidth.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 05:00 AM)
YOU are the people suggesting that there might be some, yet you can't explain what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Have you really not noticed that in all the attempts to refute what I've been pointing out, not a one of you has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative? And you won't consider the possibility that there is no alternative including your own.
BTW do you believe in life after death?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 21 2009, 05:11 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
YOU are the people suggesting that there might be some, yet you can't explain what it is you think you're trying to talk about.
That's just a bald-faced lie.
So in other words, "I'm the only person who's right, and everyone else on this planet is wrong."
That's called Schizophrenia.
You claimed it was a lie, then made some personal insults. You lied when you claimed it was a lie, and you showed that I'm correct by your inability to try to explain what you think you're trying to talk about. By now I don't believe you have any idea what you think.
So in other words, "I'm the only person who's right, and everyone else on this planet is wrong."
That's called Schizophrenia.
You claimed it was a lie, then made some personal insults. You lied when you claimed it was a lie, and you showed that I'm correct by your inability to try to explain what you think you're trying to talk about. By now I don't believe you have any idea what you think.
If you're not agreeing with nopEda, he can't understand you. Selective comprehension skills.
What a waste of firing neurons.
What a waste of firing neurons.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 21 2009, 06:22 AM)
It is clear you have never read or understood special relativity and general relativity. Given your mental capacity, I think it suffice to say that it is not necessary to re-arrange the matter in the Universe for time travel to be possible.
Maybe not, but it's necessary if you want the matter to be as it was at the point you want to travel back to. If not, then why would you even try to "go"???
Maybe not, but it's necessary if you want the matter to be as it was at the point you want to travel back to. If not, then why would you even try to "go"???
QUOTE (vkamath+)
As I said before, it you don't understand it doesn't make it impossible.
No, but some things are impractical enough to be impossible. Here's an experiment for you if you want to change the whole universe back, try doing it with one egg. If that seems unfair remember that to do everything you would not only have to do it with a LOT of eggs--in fact you'd have to do it with every egg that ever existed--but also with things that have burned. Not just buildings and huge forest fires, and volcanoes, and we might as well go ahead and and toss in all explosions that have ever occurred which includes all the progressions of stars...wow, that's a big job you have there. And then you have to change the positions too...we've just been talking about changing back the condition of the matter, but you'd also have to figure out exactly where every particle of matter was and put it back EXACTLY as it was! So anyway try it with an egg to start with and then work up to a whole chickenhouse, and then the county the chickenhouse is in, then maybe the state, or the country, or maybe at that point you would be ready to jump to the whole planet? To begin with though just try something small. But then the egg would be all by itself going back in time while the rest of the universe would still be as it is...it wouldn't change back with the egg. That may work okay for an egg who doesn't care, but if humans go back in time then they are going to want the whole rest of the universe to go back in time with them or else what's the use of going? Try explaining how it would do any good to go back in time if the rest of the matter in the universe doesn't do it along with you.
No, but some things are impractical enough to be impossible. Here's an experiment for you if you want to change the whole universe back, try doing it with one egg. If that seems unfair remember that to do everything you would not only have to do it with a LOT of eggs--in fact you'd have to do it with every egg that ever existed--but also with things that have burned. Not just buildings and huge forest fires, and volcanoes, and we might as well go ahead and and toss in all explosions that have ever occurred which includes all the progressions of stars...wow, that's a big job you have there. And then you have to change the positions too...we've just been talking about changing back the condition of the matter, but you'd also have to figure out exactly where every particle of matter was and put it back EXACTLY as it was! So anyway try it with an egg to start with and then work up to a whole chickenhouse, and then the county the chickenhouse is in, then maybe the state, or the country, or maybe at that point you would be ready to jump to the whole planet? To begin with though just try something small. But then the egg would be all by itself going back in time while the rest of the universe would still be as it is...it wouldn't change back with the egg. That may work okay for an egg who doesn't care, but if humans go back in time then they are going to want the whole rest of the universe to go back in time with them or else what's the use of going? Try explaining how it would do any good to go back in time if the rest of the matter in the universe doesn't do it along with you.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 21 2009, 02:55 PM)
By nopEda's definition, if you disagree with him, you are not thinking realistically.
Try explaining exactly what you think I'm wrong about and WHY!!!:
Try explaining exactly what you think I'm wrong about and WHY!!!:
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 11:50 AM)
Try explaining exactly what you think I'm wrong about and WHY!!!:
Been there, done that, at great lenght by many people.
The fact that you don't understand simply highlights my previous post.
Been there, done that, at great lenght by many people.
The fact that you don't understand simply highlights my previous post.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 04:50 PM)
Try explaining exactly what you think I'm wrong about and WHY!!!:
You are wrong to think that someone can think realistically about the existence of something by changing the very nature of that something to fit what you believe exists.
All you end up doing is arguing that you believe what you believe exists, exists.
If people are monogamous then monogamous means having only one sex partner for life. Wait, that doesn't describe people.
Let's try again.
If people are monogamous then monogamous means not having more than one spouse at a time. Hey that's better. and if we water it down even more by saying that the spouse has to be economically dependend on you then we can include more people as monogamous.
You are wrong to think that someone can think realistically about the existence of something by changing the very nature of that something to fit what you believe exists.
All you end up doing is arguing that you believe what you believe exists, exists.
If people are monogamous then monogamous means having only one sex partner for life. Wait, that doesn't describe people.
Let's try again.
If people are monogamous then monogamous means not having more than one spouse at a time. Hey that's better. and if we water it down even more by saying that the spouse has to be economically dependend on you then we can include more people as monogamous.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Maybe not, but it's necessary if you want the matter to be as it was at the point you want to travel back to. If not, then why would you even try to "go"???
You did not read the link I gave you. Here is a small 4.5 minute video explaining time dilation in a very simple manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM28eErikAo
I hope by the end of the video, you will understand the simple fact that it is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to achieve time travel.
If you don't watch the video, then it means you are unwilling to learn in any manner. You can take a horse to the water, but can't make him drink.
You did not read the link I gave you. Here is a small 4.5 minute video explaining time dilation in a very simple manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM28eErikAo
I hope by the end of the video, you will understand the simple fact that it is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to achieve time travel.
If you don't watch the video, then it means you are unwilling to learn in any manner. You can take a horse to the water, but can't make him drink.
QUOTE (Bloy+May 14 2009, 08:12 PM)
the key word....."he"
obviously you feel if you need a "god" it must be male.
...all "gods" ARE created.....by us earthlings...
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
obviously you feel if you need a "god" it must be male.
...all "gods" ARE created.....by us earthlings...
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 21 2009, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Maybe not, but it's necessary if you want the matter to be as it was at the point you want to travel back to. If not, then why would you even try to "go"???
time dilation . . . it is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to achieve time travel.
The fact that clocks are influenced by gravity and motion doesn't mean you could get anything out of traveling back in time if you didn't change the whole universe when you did so. If you didn't change the rest of the universe ALSO, wt F do you think you could possibly get out of going back in time?
The fact that clocks are influenced by gravity and motion doesn't mean you could get anything out of traveling back in time if you didn't change the whole universe when you did so. If you didn't change the rest of the universe ALSO, wt F do you think you could possibly get out of going back in time?
As expected the dumb horse was taken to the water but refused to drink. I give up.
time dilation . . . it is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to achieve time travel.
The fact that clocks are influenced by gravity and motion doesn't mean you could get anything out of traveling back in time if you didn't change the whole universe when you did so. If you didn't change the rest of the universe ALSO, wt F do you think you could possibly get out of going back in time?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 11:53 PM)
The fact that clocks are influenced by gravity and motion doesn't mean you could get anything out of traveling back in time if you didn't change the whole universe when you did so. If you didn't change the rest of the universe ALSO, wt F do you think you could possibly get out of going back in time? As expected the dumb horse was taken to the water but refused to drink. I give up.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 21 2009, 06:28 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The fact that clocks are influenced by gravity and motion doesn't mean you could get anything out of traveling back in time if you didn't change the whole universe when you did so. If you didn't change the rest of the universe ALSO, wt F do you think you could possibly get out of going back in time?
As expected the dumb horse was taken to the water but refused to drink. I give up.
You sure haven't explained how the influence of motion and gravity on clocks could make it possible to travel back in time, and you also haven't explained what good it would do someone to travel back in time unless the rest of the universe did it with them. You didn't because you can't. You desperately want to cling to naive and unrealistic ideas, but you can't back them up. Since you can't back them up, how am I supposed to enjoy whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about?
You sure haven't explained how the influence of motion and gravity on clocks could make it possible to travel back in time, and you also haven't explained what good it would do someone to travel back in time unless the rest of the universe did it with them. You didn't because you can't. You desperately want to cling to naive and unrealistic ideas, but you can't back them up. Since you can't back them up, how am I supposed to enjoy whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You sure haven't explained how the influence of motion and gravity on clocks could make it possible to travel back in time, and you also haven't explained what good it would do someone to travel back in time unless the rest of the universe did it with them. You didn't because you can't. You desperately want to cling to naive and unrealistic ideas, but you can't back them up. Since you can't back them up, how am I supposed to enjoy whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about?
Time travel is not impossible theoretically and hence may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
It is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to travel back in time because time is not absolute. It is relative to where you are. As you move through space, your movement through time slows down.
Gravity also has an effect on time, but that is another story..
Time travel is not impossible theoretically and hence may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
It is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to travel back in time because time is not absolute. It is relative to where you are. As you move through space, your movement through time slows down.
Gravity also has an effect on time, but that is another story..
QUOTE (buttershug+May 21 2009, 05:39 PM)
You are wrong to think that someone can think realistically about the existence of something by changing the very nature of that something to fit what you believe exists.
I don't believe I've ever thought omnipotence is possible, meaning I've never believed that God or anything else could be omnipotent. I'm not going to try to change the meaning of God to have impossible attributes just to satisfy you or anybody else.
I don't believe I've ever thought omnipotence is possible, meaning I've never believed that God or anything else could be omnipotent. I'm not going to try to change the meaning of God to have impossible attributes just to satisfy you or anybody else.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 22 2009, 04:11 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You sure haven't explained how the influence of motion and gravity on clocks could make it possible to travel back in time, and you also haven't explained what good it would do someone to travel back in time unless the rest of the universe did it with them. You didn't because you can't. You desperately want to cling to naive and unrealistic ideas, but you can't back them up. Since you can't back them up, how am I supposed to enjoy whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about?
Time travel is not impossible theoretically
Physically is where we find the problems.
Time travel is not impossible theoretically
Physically is where we find the problems.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
and hence may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
It is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to travel back in time
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was when you left?
It is not necessary to move all the matter in the Universe to travel back in time
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was when you left?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
because time is not absolute.
You don't know if it is or not for one thing, and matter is more problematic regardless of whether time is absolute or not.
You don't know if it is or not for one thing, and matter is more problematic regardless of whether time is absolute or not.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 05:38 PM)
I don't believe I've ever thought omnipotence is possible, meaning I've never believed that God or anything else could be omnipotent. I'm not going to try to change the meaning of God to have impossible attributes just to satisfy you or anybody else.
Why do you keep talking about if omnipotence it possible?
I'm not talking about what is possible.
I'm talking about defintions of words.
You are changing the meaning of God to NOT have what you call impossible attributes.
If you did want to satisfy us you would not change the meaning of God like you do.
If time travel is possible it is without changing the Universe back the way it was.
(or fit in anything you think makes time travel impossible.)
And have you found any low-fat mayonaise yet?
Why do you keep talking about if omnipotence it possible?
I'm not talking about what is possible.
I'm talking about defintions of words.
You are changing the meaning of God to NOT have what you call impossible attributes.
If you did want to satisfy us you would not change the meaning of God like you do.
If time travel is possible it is without changing the Universe back the way it was.
(or fit in anything you think makes time travel impossible.)
And have you found any low-fat mayonaise yet?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Physically is where we find the problems.
For now, but not impossible in the future unlike your claim.
For now, but not impossible in the future unlike your claim.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was when you left?
This shows that you completely fail to understand relativity. I can't do anything to make you understand.
This shows that you completely fail to understand relativity. I can't do anything to make you understand.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You don't know if it is or not for one thing, and matter is more problematic regardless of whether time is absolute or not.
Special Relativity has been proved beyond doubt by experiments.
Special Relativity has been proved beyond doubt by experiments.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 23 2009, 06:34 PM)
Why do you keep talking about if omnipotence it possible?
I'm not talking about what is possible.
What's meaningless to you is what's the most important thing to me, and I'm not going to attempt to change for you.
I'm not talking about what is possible.
What's meaningless to you is what's the most important thing to me, and I'm not going to attempt to change for you.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I'm talking about defintions of words.
You are changing the meaning of God to NOT have what you call impossible attributes.
If you did want to satisfy us you would not change the meaning of God like you do.
I'm not going to change what it means to me to something I consider unrealistic and/or impossible.
You are changing the meaning of God to NOT have what you call impossible attributes.
If you did want to satisfy us you would not change the meaning of God like you do.
I'm not going to change what it means to me to something I consider unrealistic and/or impossible.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
If time travel is possible it is without changing the Universe back the way it was.
(or fit in anything you think makes time travel impossible.)
Unless you can explain how it could do anyone any good to travel back in time if they couldn't make at least the entire planet change back with them, then we have no reason to believe it would be any different than not going back at all. Well, it might make some slight difference...the person who goes back might vanish if the matter composing them was not composing them at the point in the progression they go back to.
(or fit in anything you think makes time travel impossible.)
Unless you can explain how it could do anyone any good to travel back in time if they couldn't make at least the entire planet change back with them, then we have no reason to believe it would be any different than not going back at all. Well, it might make some slight difference...the person who goes back might vanish if the matter composing them was not composing them at the point in the progression they go back to.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And have you found any low-fat mayonaise yet?
Google search
Results 1 - 10 of about 430,000 for "low fat" mayonnaise. (0.16 seconds)
#
Hellmann's | Why it's America's Favorite Mayonnaise
Mayonnaise Dressing With Extra Virgin Olive Oil · Canola Cholesterol Free Mayonnaise · Low Fat Mayonnaise Dressing · Mayonesa con Jugo de Limón. Mustards ...
www.hellmanns.com/products/real_mayo.aspx - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Eating Well; Taste Quest in Low-Fat Mayonnaise - The New York Times
Jul 29, 1998 ... According to Best Foods, the manufacturer of Hellmann's Mayonnaise, low-fat and no-fat mayonnaises from all companies accounted for 28 ...
www.nytimes.com/1998/07/29/dining/eating-well-taste-quest-in-low-fat-mayonnaise.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Full fat vs low fat, mayo varieties tasted - Slashfood
Hellman's Mayonnaise (Best Foods, for shoppers in the western US) is the favorite brand of Cooks Illustrated and Cooks Country test kitchens, ...
www.slashfood.com/2006/09/13/full-fat-vs-low-fat-mayo-varieties-tasted/ - 66k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Eating Tips
Use low-fat mayonnaise. Best Foods/Helmans Low-Fat Mayonnaise has 1 gram of fat per tablespoon. It is fine on sandwiches and mixed with strong tasting foods ...
www.mardiweb.com/lowfat/eattips.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Cooking: recipe for Low Fat Mayonnaise
This mayonnaise recipe has only 18 calories per tablespoon and no cholesterol. ... 1/4 cup plain low-fat yogurt; 2 tsp yellow mustard; 1 tsp horseradish ...
www.make-stuff.com/cooking/mayonnaise.html - Similar pages
#
Best Foods | Low Fat Mayonnaise Dressing
Best Foods reduced fat mayonnaise dressing is rich, creamy and delicious, with only 1 gram of fat/serving. Now you can forget the fat not the taste.
www.bestfoods.com/products/reduced_fat_mayo.aspx - 42k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Low fat mayonnaise Recipe - AskYourNeighbor.com
A low-fat mayonnaise -taste alike- recipe. Use this Low fat mayonnaise Recipe in place of the regular mayonnasie! Free recipes from the Menu Minder ...
www.askyourneighbor.com/recipes/363.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Low Fat Mayonnaise Recipe @ CDKitchen.com :: it's what's cooking ...
A recipe for Low Fat Mayonnaise containing cashews water corn starch garlic powder salt dry mustard paprika lemon juice rice syrup apple cider vinegar ...
www.cdkitchen.com/recipes/recs/507/Low_Fat_Mayonnaise61430.shtml - Similar pages
#
Easy Low Fat Mayonnaise Recipe
GroupRecipes.com the food social network serves up a Easy Low Fat Mayonnaise recipe. Step #1 Put everything into microsafe jug & mix.
www.grouprecipes.com/sr/31917/easy-low-fat-mayonnaise/recipe/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Kitchen Dictionary: mayonnaise
Substitutions: 1/2 cup plain nonfat yogurt + 1/2 cup fat-free mayonnaise = 1 cup low-fat mayonnaise; 1 cup fat-free or reduced-fat sour cream = 1 cup ...
www.recipezaar.com/library/getentry.zsp?id=159 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
Google search
Results 1 - 10 of about 430,000 for "low fat" mayonnaise. (0.16 seconds)
#
Hellmann's | Why it's America's Favorite Mayonnaise
Mayonnaise Dressing With Extra Virgin Olive Oil · Canola Cholesterol Free Mayonnaise · Low Fat Mayonnaise Dressing · Mayonesa con Jugo de Limón. Mustards ...
www.hellmanns.com/products/real_mayo.aspx - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Eating Well; Taste Quest in Low-Fat Mayonnaise - The New York Times
Jul 29, 1998 ... According to Best Foods, the manufacturer of Hellmann's Mayonnaise, low-fat and no-fat mayonnaises from all companies accounted for 28 ...
www.nytimes.com/1998/07/29/dining/eating-well-taste-quest-in-low-fat-mayonnaise.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Full fat vs low fat, mayo varieties tasted - Slashfood
Hellman's Mayonnaise (Best Foods, for shoppers in the western US) is the favorite brand of Cooks Illustrated and Cooks Country test kitchens, ...
www.slashfood.com/2006/09/13/full-fat-vs-low-fat-mayo-varieties-tasted/ - 66k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Eating Tips
Use low-fat mayonnaise. Best Foods/Helmans Low-Fat Mayonnaise has 1 gram of fat per tablespoon. It is fine on sandwiches and mixed with strong tasting foods ...
www.mardiweb.com/lowfat/eattips.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Cooking: recipe for Low Fat Mayonnaise
This mayonnaise recipe has only 18 calories per tablespoon and no cholesterol. ... 1/4 cup plain low-fat yogurt; 2 tsp yellow mustard; 1 tsp horseradish ...
www.make-stuff.com/cooking/mayonnaise.html - Similar pages
#
Best Foods | Low Fat Mayonnaise Dressing
Best Foods reduced fat mayonnaise dressing is rich, creamy and delicious, with only 1 gram of fat/serving. Now you can forget the fat not the taste.
www.bestfoods.com/products/reduced_fat_mayo.aspx - 42k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Low fat mayonnaise Recipe - AskYourNeighbor.com
A low-fat mayonnaise -taste alike- recipe. Use this Low fat mayonnaise Recipe in place of the regular mayonnasie! Free recipes from the Menu Minder ...
www.askyourneighbor.com/recipes/363.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Low Fat Mayonnaise Recipe @ CDKitchen.com :: it's what's cooking ...
A recipe for Low Fat Mayonnaise containing cashews water corn starch garlic powder salt dry mustard paprika lemon juice rice syrup apple cider vinegar ...
www.cdkitchen.com/recipes/recs/507/Low_Fat_Mayonnaise61430.shtml - Similar pages
#
Easy Low Fat Mayonnaise Recipe
GroupRecipes.com the food social network serves up a Easy Low Fat Mayonnaise recipe. Step #1 Put everything into microsafe jug & mix.
www.grouprecipes.com/sr/31917/easy-low-fat-mayonnaise/recipe/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
#
Kitchen Dictionary: mayonnaise
Substitutions: 1/2 cup plain nonfat yogurt + 1/2 cup fat-free mayonnaise = 1 cup low-fat mayonnaise; 1 cup fat-free or reduced-fat sour cream = 1 cup ...
www.recipezaar.com/library/getentry.zsp?id=159 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
Gotcha those are not officially mayonaise.
If it's not high in fat it's not mayonaise.
If it's low fat, notice how they say mayonaise dressing?
They do that because if it's low fat it's not mayonaise so they have to call it something else.
The ones that don't aren't selling it and are just being sloppy with their use of the term.
At the store Hellman's had "real mayonaise"
The half fat version used five words, four were small and mayonaise was bigger.
But it was still a dressing not mayonaise.
If it's not high in fat it's not mayonaise.
If it's low fat, notice how they say mayonaise dressing?
They do that because if it's low fat it's not mayonaise so they have to call it something else.
The ones that don't aren't selling it and are just being sloppy with their use of the term.
At the store Hellman's had "real mayonaise"
The half fat version used five words, four were small and mayonaise was bigger.
But it was still a dressing not mayonaise.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 23 2009, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You don't know if it is or not for one thing, and matter is more problematic regardless of whether time is absolute or not.
This shows that you completely fail to understand relativity. I can't do anything to make you understand.
You can't explain how anything could possibly get all the matter in the universe to revert back to the conditions and positions is in was during a previous point in the progression.
You can't explain how anything could possibly get all the matter in the universe to revert back to the conditions and positions is in was during a previous point in the progression.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was when you left?
Special Relativity has been proved beyond doubt by experiments.
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was???
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was???
QUOTE (buttershug+May 25 2009, 05:04 PM)
Gotcha those are not officially mayonaise.
If it's not high in fat it's not mayonaise.
If it's low fat, notice how they say mayonaise dressing?
They do that because if it's low fat it's not mayonaise so they have to call it something else.
_________________________________________________________
According to Best Foods, the manufacturer of Hellmann's Mayonnaise, low-fat and no-fat mayonnaises from all companies accounted for 28 percent of the market in 1989; today they account for 20 percent.
Mayonnaise is the suspension of oil in egg yolks. Nothing more; everything else is flavoring. But that basic prescription went out the window when mayonnaises were invented that were low fat, reduced fat, light, nonfat, not made with eggs at all or made with tofu. Now, a commercial brand may contain cornstarch; potassium sorbate, which is a common preservative; xanathan gum, and artificial colors and flavors.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/29/dining/e...mayonnaise.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
If it's not high in fat it's not mayonaise.
If it's low fat, notice how they say mayonaise dressing?
They do that because if it's low fat it's not mayonaise so they have to call it something else.
_________________________________________________________
According to Best Foods, the manufacturer of Hellmann's Mayonnaise, low-fat and no-fat mayonnaises from all companies accounted for 28 percent of the market in 1989; today they account for 20 percent.
Mayonnaise is the suspension of oil in egg yolks. Nothing more; everything else is flavoring. But that basic prescription went out the window when mayonnaises were invented that were low fat, reduced fat, light, nonfat, not made with eggs at all or made with tofu. Now, a commercial brand may contain cornstarch; potassium sorbate, which is a common preservative; xanathan gum, and artificial colors and flavors.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/29/dining/e...mayonnaise.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You can't explain how anything could possibly get all the matter in the universe to revert back to the conditions and positions is in was during a previous point in the progression.
As I said, Time is not absolute. You are unable to wrap your head around the idea.
You don't. You don't get the universe to change. The timetraveler does the changing. You're postulating that the traveler remains fixed in time and alters the universe to a previous configuration. Again the problem is you invent your own language and expect everyone to speak it.
Nutcase not only makes up his own language, he makes up arguments and claims they were said by others. Quite delusional, existing in a world of his own.
As I said, Time is not absolute. You are unable to wrap your head around the idea.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was???
No it wouldn't.
No it wouldn't.
QUOTE
You can't explain how anything could possibly get all the matter in the universe to revert back to the conditions and positions is in was during a previous point in the progression.
You don't. You don't get the universe to change. The timetraveler does the changing. You're postulating that the traveler remains fixed in time and alters the universe to a previous configuration. Again the problem is you invent your own language and expect everyone to speak it.
QUOTE (AlexG+)
You're postulating that the traveler remains fixed in time and alters the universe to a previous configuration.
No, I'm not. In reality it's you who argue in favor of the possibility who want to do that, and I'm pointing out that if the universe didn't go back with the supposed traveler then all the rest of the matter in the universe would be as it was when the traveler left so it would serve no purpose even if it was possible to go back. I also pointed out that if only the traveler was all that changed, if he/she changed to be as they were at a point before they existed as an individual, it's likely they might no longer exist as an individual.
No, I'm not. In reality it's you who argue in favor of the possibility who want to do that, and I'm pointing out that if the universe didn't go back with the supposed traveler then all the rest of the matter in the universe would be as it was when the traveler left so it would serve no purpose even if it was possible to go back. I also pointed out that if only the traveler was all that changed, if he/she changed to be as they were at a point before they existed as an individual, it's likely they might no longer exist as an individual.
QUOTE
No, I'm not. In reality it's you who argue in favor of the possibility who want to do that,
Nutcase not only makes up his own language, he makes up arguments and claims they were said by others. Quite delusional, existing in a world of his own.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 25 2009, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What good would it do you to travel back in time if everything else around you stayed as it was???
No it wouldn't.
So your imagined time machine would be able to change all the matter of the universe back to conditions and positions it was in at whatever point in the progression you choose huh? That's quite an imagination you have there. You'd better be careful though, because if you go back to before you are conceived then the matter that makes up you would be doing other things, so you could not exist. Caution!
You don't. You don't get the universe to change. The timetraveler does the changing.
So if the time traveler changes back to what the matter composing his body was doing two hundred years ago, he would no longer exist. What possible good do you think that could do anybody, do you have any clue at all???
So your imagined time machine would be able to change all the matter of the universe back to conditions and positions it was in at whatever point in the progression you choose huh? That's quite an imagination you have there. You'd better be careful though, because if you go back to before you are conceived then the matter that makes up you would be doing other things, so you could not exist. Caution!
It is hopeless discussing with you as you are unable to understand Relativity and the concept of time Not being absolute.
No it wouldn't.
So your imagined time machine would be able to change all the matter of the universe back to conditions and positions it was in at whatever point in the progression you choose huh? That's quite an imagination you have there. You'd better be careful though, because if you go back to before you are conceived then the matter that makes up you would be doing other things, so you could not exist. Caution!
QUOTE (AlexG+May 25 2009, 06:36 PM)
You don't. You don't get the universe to change. The timetraveler does the changing.
So if the time traveler changes back to what the matter composing his body was doing two hundred years ago, he would no longer exist. What possible good do you think that could do anybody, do you have any clue at all???
QUOTE (AlexG+)
You're postulating that the traveler remains fixed in time and alters the universe to a previous configuration. Again the problem is you invent your own language and expect everyone to speak it.
No, you just don't know what you've been trying to think about. In every depiction of the situation I've seen or heard of, the traveler remains the same but everything around him changes back to the way it was. I've never heard a rendition where nothing changed except the traveler, who simply vanished because he traveled back to a point before he existed. Or even a case where the traveler simply got younger but everything else stayed the same. You haven't noticed any of that, obviously, but I have.
No, you just don't know what you've been trying to think about. In every depiction of the situation I've seen or heard of, the traveler remains the same but everything around him changes back to the way it was. I've never heard a rendition where nothing changed except the traveler, who simply vanished because he traveled back to a point before he existed. Or even a case where the traveler simply got younger but everything else stayed the same. You haven't noticed any of that, obviously, but I have.
There's no arguing with a nutcase. He speaks a language all his own.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 27 2009, 06:18 AM)
So your imagined time machine would be able to change all the matter of the universe back to conditions and positions it was in at whatever point in the progression you choose huh? That's quite an imagination you have there. You'd better be careful though, because if you go back to before you are conceived then the matter that makes up you would be doing other things, so you could not exist. Caution! It is hopeless discussing with you as you are unable to understand Relativity and the concept of time Not being absolute.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 26 2009, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (AlexG+)
You're postulating that the traveler remains fixed in time and alters the universe to a previous configuration.
No, I'm not. In reality it's you who argue in favor of the possibility who want to do that, and I'm pointing out that if the universe didn't go back with the supposed traveler then all the rest of the matter in the universe would be as it was when the traveler left so it would serve no purpose even if it was possible to go back. I also pointed out that if only the traveler was all that changed, if he/she changed to be as they were at a point before they existed as an individual, it's likely they might no longer exist as an individual.
Nutcase not only makes up his own language, he makes up arguments and claims they were said by others.
I point out things people don't want to think about, and apparently sometimes things people can't comprehend.
Because the universe does not need the intervention of a supernatural being to exist and function. The Laws of Physics are all that is needed.
What "governs" these laws? Is there a legislative body? Why can't God be natural?
Men didn't create physics, we discover them.
No, I'm not. In reality it's you who argue in favor of the possibility who want to do that, and I'm pointing out that if the universe didn't go back with the supposed traveler then all the rest of the matter in the universe would be as it was when the traveler left so it would serve no purpose even if it was possible to go back. I also pointed out that if only the traveler was all that changed, if he/she changed to be as they were at a point before they existed as an individual, it's likely they might no longer exist as an individual.QUOTE (AlexG+May 26 2009, 02:33 AM)
Nutcase not only makes up his own language, he makes up arguments and claims they were said by others.
I point out things people don't want to think about, and apparently sometimes things people can't comprehend.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 27 2009, 09:36 AM)
It is hopeless discussing with you as you are unable to understand Relativity and the concept of time Not being absolute.
Matter appears to be absolute, so how do you think you can make every bit of it go back the way it was during a previous period in the progression?
Matter appears to be absolute, so how do you think you can make every bit of it go back the way it was during a previous period in the progression?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 31 2009, 01:27 PM)
Matter appears to be absolute, so how do you think you can make every bit of it go back the way it was during a previous period in the progression?
You have suggested that you accept that a technologically advanced race could travel through different cycles of the universe. In such case you are accepting the idea of multiple universes in which case many could be parallel to our own. Now if humans advance to the point of doing exactly as you say is possible for aliens then humans should be able to travel to a point in our history exactly parallel to their past and effect our present.
In effect it would be time travel.
You have suggested that you accept that a technologically advanced race could travel through different cycles of the universe. In such case you are accepting the idea of multiple universes in which case many could be parallel to our own. Now if humans advance to the point of doing exactly as you say is possible for aliens then humans should be able to travel to a point in our history exactly parallel to their past and effect our present.
In effect it would be time travel.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 31 2009, 07:50 PM)
You have suggested that you accept that a technologically advanced race could travel through different cycles of the universe. In such case you are accepting the idea of multiple universes in which case many could be parallel to our own. Now if humans advance to the point of doing exactly as you say is possible for aliens then humans should be able to travel to a point in our history exactly parallel to their past and effect our present.
In effect it would be time travel.
No. "Parallel" universes are not realistic thinking to begin with since there's no reason to think they would exist, and even if beings do become able to move from one progression to another one they would just have done that, not moved in time in the universe they started out it. It's just not possible, so you should accept that and move on to apply and enjoy your newly learned information instead of trying to fight it and make it somehow untrue.
In effect it would be time travel.
No. "Parallel" universes are not realistic thinking to begin with since there's no reason to think they would exist, and even if beings do become able to move from one progression to another one they would just have done that, not moved in time in the universe they started out it. It's just not possible, so you should accept that and move on to apply and enjoy your newly learned information instead of trying to fight it and make it somehow untrue.
QUOTE (FatherJFair+Jun 4 2009, 11:47 AM)
Please take some time to open yourself to God. He will do the rest. That is all that is needed.
I did, and have since come up with this:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
I did, and have since come up with this:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 4 2009, 10:26 AM)
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Can something be alien to it's own creation?
Can something be alien to it's own creation?
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 4 2009, 03:26 PM)
I did, and have since come up with this:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
When Jamaican's first introduced their patties to Ontario the Government said that they had to be called Jamaican patties so as not to be confused with hamberpatties that were already here.
Father Jfair is talking about one thing you are talking about something different.
It would only be polite for you to tell him that you don't believe in word definitions or in his God.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
When Jamaican's first introduced their patties to Ontario the Government said that they had to be called Jamaican patties so as not to be confused with hamberpatties that were already here.
Father Jfair is talking about one thing you are talking about something different.
It would only be polite for you to tell him that you don't believe in word definitions or in his God.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 4 2009, 03:59 PM)
Can something be alien to it's own creation?
I take it for granted that the universe came first, but the way people 'round here react to the fact that God would almost certainly have to be an alien there doesn't seem to me much point in going on about details like that, especially since it might conflict with some people's Sunday School lessons.
I take it for granted that the universe came first, but the way people 'round here react to the fact that God would almost certainly have to be an alien there doesn't seem to me much point in going on about details like that, especially since it might conflict with some people's Sunday School lessons.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 6 2009, 08:06 PM)
I take it for granted that the universe came first, but the way people 'round here react to the fact that God would almost certainly have to be an alien there doesn't seem to me much point in going on about details like that, especially since it might conflict with some people's Sunday School lessons.
but if God exists then he made the Universe.
Because if he didn't he's not God.
So let's see, you strip the word of meaning omnipotent, now you strip the word of meaning the Creator of the Universe.
But you will only strip the word so far?
You really have to tell us how far you will strip the word of meaning.
but if God exists then he made the Universe.
Because if he didn't he's not God.
So let's see, you strip the word of meaning omnipotent, now you strip the word of meaning the Creator of the Universe.
But you will only strip the word so far?
You really have to tell us how far you will strip the word of meaning.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 4 2009, 10:22 AM)
No. "Parallel" universes are not realistic thinking to begin with since there's no reason to think they would exist, and even if beings do become able to move from one progression to another one they would just have done that, not moved in time in the universe they started out it. It's just not possible,
You suggested beings being able to travel from one universal cycle to another.
Why couldn't the last cycle be parallel to this one?
You suggested beings being able to travel from one universal cycle to another.
Why couldn't the last cycle be parallel to this one?
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 6 2009, 09:46 PM)
but if God exists then he made the Universe.
Because if he didn't he's not God.
So let's see, you strip the word of meaning omnipotent, now you strip the word of meaning the Creator of the Universe.
But you will only strip the word so far?
You really have to tell us how far you will strip the word of meaning.
To me he could not be omnipotent nor could he have created matter and energy. Even though that's the case he could still be the supreme being and have influence on this particular cycle if the universe is going through cycles.
Because if he didn't he's not God.
So let's see, you strip the word of meaning omnipotent, now you strip the word of meaning the Creator of the Universe.
But you will only strip the word so far?
You really have to tell us how far you will strip the word of meaning.
To me he could not be omnipotent nor could he have created matter and energy. Even though that's the case he could still be the supreme being and have influence on this particular cycle if the universe is going through cycles.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 7 2009, 12:11 PM)
You suggested beings being able to travel from one universal cycle to another.
Why couldn't the last cycle be parallel to this one?
For one thing the odds against it are overwhelming. But even if it were, there would be no way of getting back to it. Even if there were it would be a different universe from this one since it was destroyed and so it wouldn't really be traveling back in time anyway. Try to accept the impossibility of at some point, so you can move on instead of trying to cling to an old impossible concept.
Why couldn't the last cycle be parallel to this one?
For one thing the odds against it are overwhelming. But even if it were, there would be no way of getting back to it. Even if there were it would be a different universe from this one since it was destroyed and so it wouldn't really be traveling back in time anyway. Try to accept the impossibility of at some point, so you can move on instead of trying to cling to an old impossible concept.
The best question is to rip the assertion, from their mouth before they make it, an obvious opponent would make as the first question, how could God possibly not be?
QUOTE
how could God possibly not be?
Because the universe does not need the intervention of a supernatural being to exist and function. The Laws of Physics are all that is needed.
Lets suppose there is a smartest being in the universe. Would you say that being is a god or the god?
QUOTE
Because the universe does not need the intervention of a supernatural being to exist and function. The Laws of Physics are all that is needed.
What "governs" these laws? Is there a legislative body? Why can't God be natural?
Men didn't create physics, we discover them.
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 8 2009, 10:50 PM)
Lets suppose there is a smartest being in the universe. Would you say that being is a god or the god?
Well, I think of it this way, what would the apex of the evolution of the mind or consciousness be?
Well, I think of it this way, what would the apex of the evolution of the mind or consciousness be?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.