Original post by !!mentor!!Again, it can't be a place where time is applicable because eternity is an application of time. Without time there can't be an eternity. Critical thinking skills would've helped you there.
No, you can absolutely say that but you'll still be wrong. You should try critical thinking.
Yes really. The other set of links I refer to are in reference to the eternal big bang hypothesis. You should read something beyond the bible.
It has. So i'll still continue knowing that.
Let me post the true definition of eternity. Infinite or unending time.
Critical thinking skills would've helped you critically think about critical thinking.
The word eternal is an application of time. Without time there would be no eternal.
It doesn't put anything into operation, as it is defined as unending / infinite time. You redefining the words eternal / eternity doesn't mean that those definitions are so.
Again critically thinking about critical thinking skills would've helped you there.
The big bang is the best explanation of the beginning of the universe. Critically thinking about critical thinking skills would've helped you there.
LOL. I've no need to redefine the word. Pick one of the many users on this thread. LOL.
Nope, that was the applicable word. But notice how you try to deflect from the fact that you had to edit one of your posts after I pointed out you were wrong. See below for your original post:
If i'd mistaken Danth's Law for Godwin's Law, i'd probably be so embarrassed that i'd scurry to try try and change it before anyone else noticed it.
See, I helped you learn.
No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated.
I haven't been disproven at all. You are the one who hurriedly tried to change your post when I pointed your Godwin's / Danth's law failure.
So you're taking your lead from my good behaviour and my approach to others just like the disciples mirrored jesus' behaviour.
Oh no, you've turned on me already, just like Judas did. This is how jesus must have felt.
Guys, i've found the hypocrite in 'StudyJosh' - looks like he needs to study some more.
The cyclic model doesn't say that the universe is eternal. And stop mixing up the links i've provided in order to claim lies. The pope believes the big bang was the beginning of the universe.
That is real christianity. The pope is a representative of the evil that is christianity. They're not credible to you because they are an inconvenient truth to the fact that christianity is abhorrent. I don't have to lie, the evil of christianity is well documented in the media and the bible.
If there is a god then he will answer to me. I as the new jesus have decreed it. The worst part is you don't even see how your beliefs have crippled you.
I have nothing to say but facts and the truth. There's nothing moronic about that. The truth always makes me happy. So if you want to feel happy and glad instead, then realise the truth of the big bang.
What a coincidence. The big bang isn't subject to the limits of the material universe. I guess that means that the big bang is transcendent also. You're having to make up description of this god thing to construct a point as you have no point.
Nope, the big bang is how the universe began so it is capable of existing outside the universe. Cosmology and the scientific method falls on the side of the big bang.
The big bang exists outside the outside the time whilst the universe exists with time. As there is no outside of time so god can't exist there. Simples.
The question I asked wasn't meant to be right or wrong. The subsequent statements that resulted from that question can absolutely be right. I have proven all over this thread that my points are correct whereas yours are wrong.
1) The big bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe and so is the first cause for the universe. The postulation of its eternal state is one hypothesis. The current big bang model states that it is the uncaused cause.
2) The first point wasn't a point, more vague suppositions. The big bang can easily be an event and eternal. There's nothing impossible about it. It can be a cause as it's uncaused.
Christianity is wholly evil full of abhorrent acts. Which is why it has to convince its followers that it's the truth.
And if there is an outside of time then there is an outside the outside of time. Awesome.
The bible absolutely promotes that and it's still relevant today,. It hasn't been superceded. My predecessor, jesus, said that not until heaven and earth disappear will the previous law change.
But perhaps jesus is lying as well? That's why the big bang sent me as the true saviour and your leader. I don't lie.
Yes, using words you don't understand. I'm not sure whether I should trust this claim here, as you have a history of lying and later changing your posts: Godwin's / Danth's law btw.
My claim has remained the same. The links have been put up long ago. If you choose not to read them then that's up to you.
You absolutely admitted you were wrong. I pointed this out to you so you've probably gone back to change your posts. I was nothing but polite and courteous from the outset. Not until you got angry did I condescend you to calm you down. And you've not been angry since. It makes perfect sense. You got triggered and became angry. I condescended you and you calmed down. Simples.
It so does. No pretending is required and there's nothing moronic about it. I've provided all the answers and you saying, "No, god did it, innit" doesn't make sense.
An unbeginning beginning makes as much sense as an uncaused cause, and makes as much sense as outside of time.
You did admit that. You can use quotes, medieval armour or whatever. You admitted that and I didn't have to condescend you for that admission.
They're only used interchangeably by people who don't understand the terms, and those people tend to be non-scientific. Hypothesis and prediction have two different meanings and they are used interchangeably by people who don't understand the terms.
You do, so okay.
The bible is no more proof of jesus' existence than the Spiderman comic series is to the existence of Dr Ock.
Outside the bible, jesus isn't mentioned any where else. The Romans kept good records and he is not mentioned in any of their records. He is only mentioned outside the bible by people who were born after him and have recounted stories about stories, in the same way that stories about Frankenstein continue to persist after the original telling. It doesn't mean that Frankenstein existed.
He seems to be a character made up of other mythical figures such as Osiris, Mithras, who had the same origins, the same death as the mythological Jesus Christ.
To not even be aware of this does not discredit you in any way as you had no credit to begin with.
So if you accept the mention of jesus in the bible then you accept all the evil if promotes. Good for you.
I didn't choose to be your new jesus, you chose me. I don't think it's funny myself. This is how jesus must've felt when some people didn't take him seriously either. I wonder if people back then called jesus stupid? But as your new jesus, I forgive you.
Christianity is pure evil. I believe in the outside of the outside of time but not the outside of time because that doesn't make sense. Time doesn't apply to god because time can't apply to something that doesn't exist. Ya no am sain?