COSMOS....General discussion thread.

[Wickabee]

Continue in your ignorance. It's a shame everyone else reading this is too busy being entertained by your embarrassment to bother setting you straight. They at least owe you that for the time you spend here.

You think alex is the only one reading this?

[Wickabee]

Oh, don't ignore the other post because that turned the page. Please read as much of half of it as you like.

[JustAlex]

my point is you are open to this but not creation? any creation? alien creation? anything?

The only reason I could be open to multiverse is because we already have ONE universe and surely if THIS universe was "created" or whatever in a naturalistic fashion, then it's not that much of a stretch to believe that there COULD be other universes out there.....or that the Universe is actually an infinite loop of "creation" and destruction.

I don't know....but the point is that WE CAN experiment on the universe.

WE CAN'T experiment on "god" there's nothing out there that points to him, her, it....there's no evidence, absolutely none.

I find recently (yes I am weird) been trying to apply Occam's Razor to my beliefs. I am unsure if between the two, Creation of any kind or the Big Bang with human evolution, which one is really the simplest, both can be quite complex when looked at from any angle.

I LOVE Occam's Razor....

Let me give you a scenario and you use Occam's Razor to determine which is more plausible.

Imagine you come home.....items are missing, the place is in disarray, the door looks like it was forced opened.

What is your initial thought? My home has just been robbed.....OR....My home has been invaded and ransacked by aliens.

Now surely, you wouldn't even dare to think about the latter, correct?

But why is that?

It MIGHT have been the latter.....you can't prove it WASN'T the latter....and let's say we never find the robbers, let's say that there are no eyewitnesses to what occurred in your home.

Would you now conclude that it was aliens?

Using Occam's Razor you still can't.....you MUST conclude that your house was more than likely robbed by humans, because even if we don't have all the necessary evidence to definitely prove it, it makes more sense, and the available evidence that WE DO HAVE points towards that conclusion.


Shrew, using the same Occam's Razor I conclude that this universe, this world, and human life were "created", formed, whatever word you want to use...naturalistic, because ALL the evidence points towards that.

NO evidence, not one shred points to god.....

[habsheaven]

Oh listen to it.

You posted no less than 5 definitions from reputable sources, 4 of which outright agreed with my assessment (which has always been straight from a dictionary, never youtube), and 1 of which did agree with my assessment, but weakly allowed for yours. Using "opinion" "view" "judgment" to try and say it isn't a belief is laughable.

Add in the definition I gave and 5 say I'm right while only one says you're right, but it says I'm right too. In sports terms, it's 5.5 - 0.5. But you're right. I'm the embarrassed one.

You posted a video with inappropriate language that gave us the wisdom of a teenage girl as a legitimate means to refute the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. But you're right, I'm the embarrassed one.

I'm so embarrassed that you took the time to prove yourself wrong. I'm so embarrassed I used the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a source while you chose YouTube and urban dictionary as sources. I'm embarrassed that I paid enough attention to the video to catch two instances of profanity, while you posted without paying enough attention to catch even one. I am certainly embarrassed that you have done little more than prove you work on half the story, half the definition, half the video. You have even only respond to half a post most of the time. Yup, I sure am embarrassed about all that.

I bet youre going to tell me I'm the one projecting too. Usually happens about this point.

No, I'm going to tell you that you are wrong. I'm sorry you do not understand simple English. It really is a shame.

[habsheaven]

Oh, don't ignore the other post because that turned the page. Please read as much of half of it as you like.

I have better things to do in my life than spending the evening arguing with you about basic definitions of words. All your posts are filled with bluster devoid of substance. That may work for the uninformed. It doesn't work on me or most of the other people on this site. We are used to your gibberish.

[shrewsbury]

alex,
not sure how you apply Occam's Razor, but your example is so far from the idea of creation or big bang, I am speechless.

who would consider aliens breaking in your home?

my would be, is it someone I know, a neighbor, or someone I don't know, not aliens or bigfoot.

I am speaking of the odds of everything that needs to be just right to create the universe and the odds of all that has to happen by accident to create life, and then all the odds of everything that needs to happen for that life to evolve into humans.

when you start looking it is crazy odds.

here is one example;

[QUOTE] According to Before the Beginning, by Sir Martin Rees, "If nuclear forces were slightly weaker, no chemical elements other than hydrogen would be stable and there would be no nuclear energy to power stars. But, if the nuclear forces were slightly stronger than they actually are relative to electric forces, two protons could stick together so readily that ordinary hydrogen would not exist, and stars would evolve quite differently." (Rees 232) This demonstrates the small chance that it took for things to actually turn out like they did, and implies that it may be difficult for things to ever duplicate themselves should this idea of a "Multiverse" be more than just a theory[QUOTE]

if we took out matching variables, such as where did the big bang come from, what was before it, and where did god come from and what was before god, we are left with some staggering odds against the big bang creating everything, and the fact something created all this is just as unlikely.

and this is just one factor among infinite ones.

[Wickabee]

I have better things to do in my life than spending the evening arguing with you about basic definitions of words. All your posts are filled with bluster devoid of substance. That may work for the uninformed. It doesn't work on me or most of the other people on this site. We are used to your gibberish.

Really? Because yesterday you had enough time. You had the time to read all the deck itions you posted and watch that inappropriate.

As for uninformed, my source was Merriam-Webster, yours were urban dictionary and YouTube. I think that says enough right there about who informs themselves, and how much. I don't take YouTube as fact.

Now, the amount you're speaking for others, and tell me how they feel, is showing quite a bit of arrogance on top of it. Telling someone what to think for them may work on YouTube, but not here.

[gsj68]

[QUOTE][QUOTE] According to Before the Beginning, by Sir Martin Rees, "If nuclear forces were slightly weaker, no chemical elements other than hydrogen would be stable and there would be no nuclear energy to power stars. But, if the nuclear forces were slightly stronger than they actually are relative to electric forces, two protons could stick together so readily that ordinary hydrogen would not exist, and stars would evolve quite differently." (Rees 232) This demonstrates the small chance that it took for things to actually turn out like they did, and implies that it may be difficult for things to ever duplicate themselves should this idea of a "Multiverse" be more than just a theory

if we took out matching variables, such as where did the big bang come from, what was before it, and where did god come from and what was before god, we are left with some staggering odds against the big bang creating everything, and the fact something created all this is just as unlikely.

bingo,the biggest problem with bigbang/evolution is the staggering odds

what are the odds my garden is going to evolve vs the odds if i seed my garden?

[habsheaven]

The fact we are here, means we beat whatever astronomical odds are attached to our origin of existence. So I don't think it matters which explanation is less complicated.

[Wickabee]

The fact we are here, means we beat whatever astronomical odds are attached to our origin of existence. So I don't think it matters which explanation is less complicated.

Do you have a YouTube video or urban dictionary definition to back up this viewpoint?