Biblical matters

Fancy a pint? Join the crai­c and non-rugby topics here.

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:37 pm

bazzaj wrote: Can't argue with much of that Dave except how can you accept the universe has endless possibilities when you deny the possibility of a creator?
Good question Baz. A creator would be outside the laws of physics. To be more specific, the physical universe would have endless physical possibilities. An all-powerful creator would be outside of space and time, and outside the laws of physics and logic as are currently known. It could not be considered a possibility within the universe if it had indeed created the universe. It wouldn't be a product of the universe, as the universe would be a product of his or her design.

How does the creator create? Does he just speak things into being like in the Bible? What are the mechanics of that? To me that's more of a creation from nothing than evolutionary theories that at least try to account for how things happen.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:00 pm

So going back Dave, prior to the big bang which I assume you believe, there was nothing.
No physics no laws nothing.
So there was a stage where no physics or laws were governing anything.
Is that my reading into your understanding?

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:04 pm

bazzaj wrote:So going back Dave, prior to the big bang which I assume you believe, there was nothing.
No physics no laws nothing.
So there was a stage where no physics or laws were governing anything.
Is that my reading into your understanding?
Correct.

Although I wasn't there.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:27 pm

Then what?

User avatar
Neil F
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4045
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Berlin

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Neil F » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:43 pm

bazzaj wrote:We can pretty much assume that the rest of Ross's work cuts the mustard as he doesn't reference it as it's not in his interests to do so.
If anything I was surprised by that as theres a fair bit left unscathed considering Perakh could have written what he wanted as Ross had no right of reply.
So, the conclusion is that because one person didn't challenge something that it cannot be challenged? That's a pretty mad conclusion to come to. Hell, look at the amount of the fecking nonsense that goes unchecked on this very forum...

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:04 pm

Neil F wrote:
bazzaj wrote:We can pretty much assume that the rest of Ross's work cuts the mustard as he doesn't reference it as it's not in his interests to do so.
If anything I was surprised by that as theres a fair bit left unscathed considering Perakh could have written what he wanted as Ross had no right of reply.
So, the conclusion is that because one person didn't challenge something that it cannot be challenged? That's a pretty mad conclusion to come to. Hell, look at have of the fecking nonsense that goes unchecked on this very forum...
Well this guy Perakh seems to know his onions and didn't challenge other theories from Ross's books which he clearly read in detail.

I'm not going to make a better scientific critique so until I see another I can only conclude with the evidence put before me.
Spoken like a true scientist you'll agree..
However if you want to find more critiques of Ross's work I'll happily look at them.

Very little I have said on this thread has gone unchallenged Neil btw but I'm still here.

HwoodMike2umate
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 5722
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: holywood (or glasgow)
Contact:

Re: Biblical matters

Post by HwoodMike2umate » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:05 pm

http://www.cryptome.org/

Klaatu barada nikto

Nollaig Shona Daoibh

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:07 pm

Neil F wrote:
bazzaj wrote:We can pretty much assume that the rest of Ross's work cuts the mustard as he doesn't reference it as it's not in his interests to do so.
If anything I was surprised by that as theres a fair bit left unscathed considering Perakh could have written what he wanted as Ross had no right of reply.
So, the conclusion is that because one person didn't challenge something that it cannot be challenged? That's a pretty mad conclusion to come to. Hell, look at have of the fecking nonsense that goes unchecked on this very forum...
Well this guy Perakh seems to know his onions and didn't challenge other theories from Ross's books which he clearly read in detail.
I've got to be honest there was nothing new I hadn't really already concluded myself or read before apart from thermodynamics.

I'm not going to make a better scientific critique so until I see another I can only conclude with the evidence put before me.
Spoken like a true scientist you'll agree..
However if you want to find more critiques of Ross's work I'll happily look at them.

Very little I have said on this thread has gone unchallenged Neil btw but I'm still here.

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:08 pm

bazzaj wrote:Then what?
Well ok before the big bang, I can't say that there were no laws of physics or that there were laws of physics. I don't have a clue. Some interesting theoretical physicists could give a great explanation but I cannot. Basically you or I don't know. I don't think anyone does.

Since we don't know if there were physical laws or not. There is nothing you can say that is logical or illogical, as their is no framework for logic. Some might say a creator caused the big bang by setting off the chain reaction for forces of the universe such as gravity to initiate the evolutionary processes to take place. You cannot say a creator did and you cannot say a creator did not. Not in terms of logic anyway.

This discussion was on whether a creator is logical, my opinion is that it is not, at least within the physical universe. I have no opinion before the big bang. You cannot, however, claim that it is logical for a creator to have initiated the big bang. Nor can anyone claim it is illogical. It is neither.

I only go back as far as the big bang. Before the big bang it is a free for all. I'm not making the claim that it is illogical that there could have been a creator before the big bang. Making that claim would not be correct, in terms of logic.

I remain open to their being a creator as I have always stated. My position is agnosticism.

In summary, a creator is not logical within the physical universe. A creator before the big bang, cannot be claimed to be logical because we cannot apply any logic.

That's pretty much all I have to say.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 17349
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Biblical matters

Post by BR » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:14 pm

Neil F wrote:... Hell, look at the amount of the fecking nonsense that goes unchecked on this very forum...
I have - there isn't that much.
Can I come out from behind the sofa yet?
www.stoutboys.co.uk

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Dave wrote:
bazzaj wrote:Then what?
Well ok before the big bang, I can't say that there were no laws of physics or that there were laws of physics. I don't have a clue. Some interesting theoretical physicists could give a great explanation but I cannot. Basically you or I don't know. I don't think anyone does.

Since we don't know if there were physical laws or not. There is nothing you can say that is logical or illogical, as their is no framework for logic. Some might say a creator caused the big bang by setting off the chain reaction for forces of the universe such as gravity to initiate the evolutionary processes to take place. You cannot say a creator did and you cannot say a creator did not. Not in terms of logic anyway.

This discussion was on whether a creator is logical, my opinion is that it is not, at least within the physical universe. I have no opinion before the big bang. You cannot, however, claim that it is logical for a creator to have initiated the big bang. Nor can anyone claim it is illogical. It is neither.

I only go back as far as the big bang. Before the big bang it is a free for all. I'm not making the claim that it is illogical that there could have been a creator before the big bang. Making that claim would not be correct, in terms of logic.

I remain open to their being a creator as I have always stated. My position is agnosticism.

In summary, a creator is not logical within the physical universe. A creator before the big bang, cannot be claimed to be logical because we cannot apply any logic.

That's pretty much all I have to say.
Very good Dave loved that.
Obviously you couldn't deny the possibility of a creator because you admitted there was a point where no laws existed and therefore generated circumstances where a creator could have by your own logic.

The only thing is that I'll have to pick you up on is that I have never stated the existence of a creator is logical.
I just find it more logical than the something from nothing theory.
Its all highly improbable but it's all we've got!
Total mindfcuk in your words.

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:39 pm

I think in summary through much discussion we can all safely conclude now that there is a God.
What now?

User avatar
pwrmoore
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11842
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:51 am
Location: East Belfast

Re: Biblical matters

Post by pwrmoore » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:45 pm

bazzaj wrote:I think in summary through much discussion we can all safely conclude now that there is a God.
What now?

Now we go back to page 1 post 1 of this topic and start again :lol:
Paul.

C'mon Ulsterrrrrrrrr! :red:

User avatar
Neil F
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4045
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Berlin

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Neil F » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:50 pm

pwrmoore wrote:
bazzaj wrote:I think in summary through much discussion we can all safely conclude now that there is a God.
What now?

Now we go back to page 1 post 1 of this topic and start again :lol:
So, what you're saying is that this thread is operating on the Big Crunch theory? :duck:

User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30219
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: Biblical matters

Post by BaggyTrousers » Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:21 pm

You are butterflying again Jizzer. You move hither & yon between extolling this clown as a scientist, to saying you don't care about qualifications then back again when it suits your purpose.

The bit that amused me greatly was picking out a few comments made on him by other equally qualified people, educationally, and then declaring in triumph that because they only debunked him on certain things that the conclusion is they support everything else he says.

You must know that is delusional bullshit Jizzer. It is like you seeing me picking out FOLK's worst features but concluding that anything else I didn't mention is top class and accurate. That is not how critiquing something or someone works.

(Thought I'd posted this earlier, but I see Neil has beaten me to the punch).
Support the team and coaching staff. Forget the rest,BUT NEVER MOVE ON.

FIRFU - FU'CK YOU ONE AND ALL, CAVING IN TO SPONSORS, SACKING THE INNOCENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, SHAMEFUL BASTA'RDS. YOU'VE LOST MY SUPPORT & I HOPE MORE ULSTERMEN & WOMEN

Post Reply