| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Donald E. Flood" |
| Date: |
05 Mar 2006 07:48:30 AM |
| Object: |
Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other than
as an act of God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
05 Mar 2006 08:55:07 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
05 Mar 2006 02:45:42 PM |
|
|
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
You don't seriously expect to get an intelligent answer do you? What
you're seeing from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke, aka Duck
*****, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck and Run) is impotence at its most
raw.
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but
I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.
He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them, let
alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads to a
dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!
The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.
For someone who is so ready (and so unchristian) to libel others with
baseless accusations of plagiarism (http://tinyurl.com/fklw8), it's as
hilarious as it is ironic that he appears to have appropriated "his"
five evidences from Thomas Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa
theologiae" which contained five "Ways" to "prove" some god's
existence, all of which have been thoroughly discredited.
He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the total
of five hundred fifty (at the last count) since they were so pathetic.
His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aren't aimed at
the material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.
His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange anything,
but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this purported
Christian love he's supposed to dispense.
He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his slanderous
unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means mooning
someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire regular
set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg
It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!
His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc
He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!
He has well over a dozen documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm
He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. I personally had him run from the *same topic* well
over 100 times in direct response to a challenge he made!
He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43
He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y
In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth the listening,
let alone responding to.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
05 Mar 2006 06:15:03 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1141591542.116544.325760@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
You don't seriously expect to get an intelligent answer do you? What
you're seeing from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke, aka Duck
*****, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck and Run) is impotence at its most
raw.
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but
I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.
He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them, let
alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads to a
dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!
The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.
For someone who is so ready (and so unchristian) to libel others with
baseless accusations of plagiarism (http://tinyurl.com/fklw8), it's as
hilarious as it is ironic that he appears to have appropriated "his"
five evidences from Thomas Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa
theologiae" which contained five "Ways" to "prove" some god's
existence, all of which have been thoroughly discredited.
He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the total
of five hundred fifty (at the last count) since they were so pathetic.
His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aren't aimed at
the material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.
His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange anything,
but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this purported
Christian love he's supposed to dispense.
He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his slanderous
unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means mooning
someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire regular
set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg
It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!
His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc
He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!
He has well over a dozen documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm
He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. I personally had him run from the *same topic* well
over 100 times in direct response to a challenge he made!
He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43
He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y
In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth the listening,
let alone responding to.
Budikka
Wow! You've done a wonderful job of documenting his "contributions" to
Alt.Atheism. Question is, "Did he even read Professor Carroll's essay?" It
would appear to be very unlikely given his response!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
06 Mar 2006 04:38:41 AM |
|
|
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1141591542.116544.325760@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
not snipping, so that everyone can see the evidence again..
You don't seriously expect to get an intelligent answer do you? What
you're seeing from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke, aka Duck
*****, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck and Run) is impotence at its most
raw.
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but
I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.
He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them, let
alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads to a
dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!
The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.
For someone who is so ready (and so unchristian) to libel others with
baseless accusations of plagiarism (http://tinyurl.com/fklw8), it's as
hilarious as it is ironic that he appears to have appropriated "his"
five evidences from Thomas Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa
theologiae" which contained five "Ways" to "prove" some god's
existence, all of which have been thoroughly discredited.
He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the total
of five hundred fifty (at the last count) since they were so pathetic.
His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aren't aimed at
the material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.
His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange anything,
but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this purported
Christian love he's supposed to dispense.
He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his slanderous
unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means mooning
someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire regular
set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg
It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!
His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc
He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!
He has well over a dozen documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm
He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. I personally had him run from the *same topic* well
over 100 times in direct response to a challenge he made!
He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43
He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y
In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth the listening,
let alone responding to.
Budikka
Wow! You've done a wonderful job of documenting his "contributions" to
Alt.Atheism. Question is, "Did he even read Professor Carroll's essay?" It
would appear to be very unlikely given his response!
I highly suspect that he's never read anything. The only evidence I see
that he *can* read is that he can also write (type).
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Department of Telepropaganda
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
06 Mar 2006 04:11:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:15:03 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
- Refer: <baLOf.803680$x96.26981@attbi_s72>
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1141591542.116544.325760@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
You don't seriously expect to get an intelligent answer do you? What
you're seeing from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke, aka Duck
*****, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck and Run) is impotence at its most
raw.
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but
I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.
He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them, let
alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads to a
dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!
The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.
For someone who is so ready (and so unchristian) to libel others with
baseless accusations of plagiarism (http://tinyurl.com/fklw8), it's as
hilarious as it is ironic that he appears to have appropriated "his"
five evidences from Thomas Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa
theologiae" which contained five "Ways" to "prove" some god's
existence, all of which have been thoroughly discredited.
He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the total
of five hundred fifty (at the last count) since they were so pathetic.
His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aren't aimed at
the material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.
His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange anything,
but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this purported
Christian love he's supposed to dispense.
He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his slanderous
unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means mooning
someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire regular
set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg
It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!
His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc
He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!
He has well over a dozen documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm
He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. I personally had him run from the *same topic* well
over 100 times in direct response to a challenge he made!
He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43
He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y
In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth the listening,
let alone responding to.
Budikka
Wow! You've done a wonderful job of documenting his "contributions" to
Alt.Atheism. Question is, "Did he even read Professor Carroll's essay?" It
would appear to be very unlikely given his response!
Even less likely, considering that he very plainly has not even read
"his" bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
05 Mar 2006 08:05:44 PM |
|
|
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1141591542.116544.325760@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
You don't seriously expect to get an intelligent answer do you? What
you're seeing from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke, aka Duck
*****, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck and Run) is impotence at its most
raw.
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but
I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.
Duke aside (way, way aside, please), how would
we describe that little 'voice' in our heads? We
don't actually 'hear' it with our ears. In novels by
such writers as Alfred Bester ("The Demolished
Man") and George O. Smith ("Highways In Hiding")
thoughts and mental messages were denoted by a
# symbol at each end, And, I think, another writer
changed the pronunciation of the word 'heard',
while still spelled the same, to 'heered" to show that
it was thoughts that were being 'heered'. And the
past tense of speak was 'speeked'. Kind of clunky,
but it got the point across.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
08 Mar 2006 05:47:56 PM |
|
|
On 5 Mar 2006 12:45:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
You don't seriously expect to get an intelligent answer do you? What
you're seeing from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke, aka Duck
*****, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck and Run) is impotence at its most
raw.
poor bud the plagiarist. She's still smarting over failing to prove there was
no Noah flood.
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but
I've never heard myself think."
The strait jacket waits for those like you that "hear" themselves think, bud the
plagiarist.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
08 Mar 2006 05:46:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:55:07 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
Don't know - who created the universe? Answer - God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
08 Mar 2006 06:06:20 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:25ru025jb2qiav4ic35png3ao1si9kknd0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:55:07 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9tsl02ptn1tl1rifdu3uhl5rqidu83q7de@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than
as an act of God.
Okay, who then created God?
Don't know - who created the universe? Answer - God.
And, what evidence do you have for this? On what basis do you believe that
the Universe needs a "cause"? Do you believe that everything needs a cause?
Have you ever heard of the Casmir effect?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
05 Mar 2006 09:54:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI
*****
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
06 Mar 2006 08:31:39 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god", is to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
06 Mar 2006 03:32:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:39 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <sfho02pu1r4nvojtadt4vgphttgamoo01a@4ax.com>
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god", is to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
An 'act of God', is most definitely 'begriming' the universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
06 Mar 2006 07:01:04 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:iiap02dmfjeik2b8u3ejqoa3jd3p0t9hsd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:39 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <sfho02pu1r4nvojtadt4vgphttgamoo01a@4ax.com>
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god", is
to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible
offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
An 'act of God', is most definitely 'begriming' the universe.
Okay, fine, who then created God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
07 Mar 2006 06:21:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:01:04 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
- Refer: <kX4Pf.599377$084.469881@attbi_s22>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:iiap02dmfjeik2b8u3ejqoa3jd3p0t9hsd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:39 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <sfho02pu1r4nvojtadt4vgphttgamoo01a@4ax.com>
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god", is
to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible
offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
An 'act of God', is most definitely 'begriming' the universe.
Okay, fine, who then created God?
Ajax.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
07 Mar 2006 05:10:30 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3luq021kd4fii93fm2uietcaa2ango3q5u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:01:04 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
- Refer: <kX4Pf.599377$084.469881@attbi_s22>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:iiap02dmfjeik2b8u3ejqoa3jd3p0t9hsd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:39 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <sfho02pu1r4nvojtadt4vgphttgamoo01a@4ax.com>
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god",
is
to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible
offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
An 'act of God', is most definitely 'begriming' the universe.
Okay, fine, who then created God?
Ajax.
Theists are not taking this thread seriously! Perhaps Professor Carroll's
essay is the coup de grāce against theism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
07 Mar 2006 06:09:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:10:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
- Refer: <GpoPf.10469$oL.7663@attbi_s71>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3luq021kd4fii93fm2uietcaa2ango3q5u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:01:04 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
- Refer: <kX4Pf.599377$084.469881@attbi_s22>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:iiap02dmfjeik2b8u3ejqoa3jd3p0t9hsd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:39 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <sfho02pu1r4nvojtadt4vgphttgamoo01a@4ax.com>
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god",
is
to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible
offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
An 'act of God', is most definitely 'begriming' the universe.
Okay, fine, who then created God?
Ajax.
Theists are not taking this thread seriously! Perhaps Professor Carroll's
essay is the coup de gr? against theism?
Who was it who wrote "be-griming"??? ;)
(And I'm not a theist)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
07 Mar 2006 05:53:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:01:04 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:iiap02dmfjeik2b8u3ejqoa3jd3p0t9hsd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:39 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <sfho02pu1r4nvojtadt4vgphttgamoo01a@4ax.com>
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god", is
to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible
offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
An 'act of God', is most definitely 'begriming' the universe.
Okay, fine, who then created God?
Man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
07 Mar 2006 05:07:11 PM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:n9tq0297e8qcc73k6c00r01a1tcn1ijabb@4ax.com...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:01:04 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:iiap02dmfjeik2b8u3ejqoa3jd3p0t9hsd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:39 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <sfho02pu1r4nvojtadt4vgphttgamoo01a@4ax.com>
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
But you knew that.
Actually, defining the begriming of the universe, as an "act of god",
is
to
define a cause. It does *not* define a motive, a reason, and the bible
offers
no reason, and no explanation, either.
An 'act of God', is most definitely 'begriming' the universe.
Okay, fine, who then created God?
Man.
An old saying is to the effect that, "If God did not exist, man would have
created him!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
08 Mar 2006 05:48:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
Give me a better answer.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists |
08 Mar 2006 06:02:53 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:m9ru02li7murtramd26tlpf224vfho3tvb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:21:08 -0600, duke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:48:30 GMT, "Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com>
wrote:
An excellent essay by Sean Carroll:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
An individual's concept, but does not reveal why the universe began
other
than as an act of God.
Defining the reason for the Universe's beginning as an "Act of God"
is not an explanation; it merely re-labels the ignorance.
Give me a better answer.
The Cosmos is all there ever was, and all that there ever will be. Have you
read Professor Carroll's essay? If not, then you need to stop responding to
my post!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
