Says the ultimate authority on intelligence:rolleyes: You can’t even chew gum and walk at the same time.
When you’re devoted to fighting ignorance you go where the ignorance is. 
I do know that- to discuss this topic. And the bulk of that post was my contribution on topic. That I coupled a tease with my actual post is coincidental, but fun anyway.
You seem to be the one harassing me and chortling in glee that I made an error, which I had already admitted.
So what you’re saying is that no one knows what caused the Big Bang to happen?Or where the material to cause the Big Bang came from? You see I try to have a reasonable discourse and I do thank you for responding. Now if the rest of the kids could behave themselves.
Says the one with a phd in stupidity:rolleyes:
What is your evidence for that assertion? I can prove you’re an idiot, I have this and the abortion thread to show how you aren’t smart enough to argue things effectively.
Have you been watching me chew gum recently?
By the way, when you die you’re gonna stop existing. Think about that tonight before you go to sleep.
Fine, I’ll bite:
Gee, classyladyhp, I don’t know what caused the Big Bang. Why do you ask?
Kind of tangential to the pitting, but I wonder if someone could demonstrate that something will *always *be untestable.
Consciousness blows my mind, and it’s the only evidence I can give that there is, maybe not God, but something beyond what science can ever explain.
Consciousness exists, but our cells all live independent lives - we are amalgamations of millions of…germs, essentially, that work really well together. No cell is ever really communing with another - the best it can do is send impulses and chemicals to other cells. And yet consciousness exists.
Could science ever explain consciousness? Could it test and prove consciousness exists or not?
For me, proof of consciousness is philosophical. If consciousness does not exist, but we perceive that it does, then it must be an illusion. But an illusion *requires *an observer. If it doesn’t fool somebody, it’s not an illusion. But if there’s somebody to fool, you have consciousness.
We are more than software running in a meat computer. Not proof of God, but it demonstrates something that makes more sense than a dick-covered nipple, or whatever it was. It’s usually an invisible unicorn, or that teapot orbiting the sun. If science hard-liners deny anything that there’s no solid evidence for, consciousness would have to be denied.
Oh and if there is a hell. You’ve got a seat reserved:D
There is no evidence for what happened before the big bang. Therefore only a stupid person would blindly assert that it is the Abrahamic, much less the Christian God.
There is zero evidence for that, yet you declare it as true. Why is that?
I thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a chick…
To demonstrate that there are some things that we do not yet understand.
So again:
And we’ve also addressed (in brief) the fundamental flaws with the “20 arguments” page you asked about.
But hey, keep repeating the same phrases and when eventually we get tired of repeating our responses you can claim victory.
Shitting dick nipples: [noparse]http://www.socalbeerpong.com/files/webform/Shitting_Dicknipples.jpg[/noparse] [NSFW. In fact, you really shouldn’t look at this.]
![http://www.socalbeerpong.com/files/webform/Shitting_Dicknipples.jpg[/noparse]](http://www.socalbeerpong.com/files/webform/Shitting_Dicknipples.jpg%5B/noparse%5D){kind=link}
We have evidence for consciousness. You think and demonstrate self awareness. We can’t know you’re not an automation pretending to be conscious, but we can’t know anything with absolute certainty.
You’re asserting that we are more than software running on a meat computer, that’s an assertion that seems to be false, since we know that consciousness is effected by damage and chemical modifications to the brain.
If we’re more than the operations of our brain, why can changes in behavior happen because of brain damage or drugs? Aside from that, we have no evidence of anything more. So the evidence we do have suggests we’re mechanical.
Well, hun, I was trying to reduce it to a level you’d be able to understand, using a metaphor you might be familiar with. Obviously, you haven’t gotten that speech from your folks yet, so we’ll try again in plain language.
No, I don’t know what caused the Big Bang. I never said I did.
No one in this thread has said they did.
No SCIENTIST has said they did, although they’ve got some theories and they’re working on experiments that can provide evidence.
The nifty thing about science is that it lets you say, “We don’t know. Yet.” And then it goes on to try to make it into, “Hey, now we know! And we have evidence!”
You, on the other hand, seem perfectly content to sit there looking at your navel, locked in your unassailable belief that waving your hand and saying “God did it” is sufficient.
It isn’t. It never will be.
Science may come up with an answer that has proof. It has that hope. You never will. More sadly, you will never recognize that the lack is in you, not in science.
Well shucks, I guess you’re right. So I guess my next question would be: what’s your point?
Any scientist who thought that we understood everything would be a pretty bored scientist; all he’d have to do would be browse the web all day and make pretty fractal patterns.
You quoted Einstein, so let me quote Newton: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
Scientists never stop searching for truth (or fact, or answers, or whatever) amidst the things they don’t understand. They’re fully aware of the limits of their knowledge. When “Because God did it” becomes an answer, all scientific enquiry has to stop, because it’s reached the level of a bored parent telling their inquisitive child, “Just because.”
At the risk of extending this hijack, this is wrong. You can earn common law trademark rights without registering your mark, just as you can earn copyright interest without registering your copyright. In both cases, registration has its advantages, but in neither case is it mandatory.
AFAIK neither of those are actual quotes from Albert Einstein. Your research prowess is on a par with your reasoning skills.
And with that I happily admit my ignorance on this subject.
Absolutely, all we have are speculations. However…
There are working theories that predict that something CAN appear out of nothing:
Y’see, there’s this phenomenon called “virtual particles”. The short version is that a vacuum can spontaneously produce two particles (or rather, a particle and its antiparticle). Many odd physical phenomena (from the Casimir Effect to near-field radio effects) can be understood in those terms, and in 1997 it was experimentally verified that not only does it happen, but it can redistribute the electrical charges/currents in an electromagnetic field where these spontaneous creations are taking place (thus meaning these particles are capable of interacting with and changing our present physical reality).
Creation ex nihilo is thus shown plausible under both our current model and current observations of the physical universe, no God necessarily required.
There are wildly speculative theories that involve entire galaxies of anti-particles beyond our ability to detect same, to account for the fact that virutal particle creation produces equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, yet all we really see today is matter.