Oh look, isn't that Marshall McSusskind!

(February 14, 2014 at 1:47 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 1:25 am)snowtracks Wrote: seems i posted something that upset the guy.

Why is it that you think drawing attention to the fact that you said something so inane and pointless as to be infuriating counts as a rebuttal?

Quote:in this physics paper, Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant, it says on the page 2 that "Some unknown
agent" initially started the inflaton. wonder what that's all about?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013v3.pdf

Your lies don't serve you well, snowy: a little google fu shows that all three of the scientists involved in the writing of that paper were atheists. One, Leonard Susskind, has youtube videos up right now repudiating intelligent design and is in fact listed on numerous lists of famous atheists. Evidently, they don't share the conclusion you're intent on dishonestly forcing into their paper.

---

You're a fucking liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8

---

Oh, and fun fact? "Agent," doesn't always mean conscious agent, you imbecile. Ever heard the phrase "chemical agent"?

think i know what the response means: like one atheist is pacing back and forth, a colleague ask 'why are you all distrub'? he answers, "you dolt, don't you realize this could mean a chemical agent suddenly took a low entropy singularity to inflation"?

Why does this "agent" have to be a "who"? It could be a "what".

(February 15, 2014 at 11:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: think i know what the response means: like one atheist is pacing back and forth, a colleague ask 'why are you all distrub'? he answers, "you dolt, don't you realize this could mean a chemical agent suddenly took a low entropy singularity to inflation"?

Ah, more dishonest christian obfuscation. My point, you little fool, is that "agent" does not always mean "conscious being." I see that you've decided to only accept the one alternate example I've given you, in order to make my point look ridiculous. That's rather pathetic, don't you think?

Incidentally, you've also failed to comment on the other things I've said; given the religious positions of all the people who wrote that paper- the ones, by the way, who used the word "agent" in the first place- don't you think it's rather dishonest to present their work as though they were implying a god?

Or are you going to continue ignoring this, in yet another characteristically religious attempt to avoid taking responsibility for your actions once they're called out?

(February 15, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 15, 2014 at 11:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: think i know what the response means: like one atheist is pacing back and forth, a colleague ask 'why are you all distrub'? he answers, "you dolt, don't you realize this could mean a chemical agent suddenly took a low entropy singularity to inflation"?

Ah, more dishonest christian obfuscation. My point, you little fool, is that "agent" does not always mean "conscious being." I see that you've decided to only accept the one alternate example I've given you, in order to make my point look ridiculous. That's rather pathetic, don't you think?

Incidentally, you've also failed to comment on the other things I've said; given the religious positions of all the people who wrote that paper- the ones, by the way, who used the word "agent" in the first place- don't you think it's rather dishonest to present their work as though they were implying a god?

Or are you going to continue ignoring this, in yet another characteristically religious attempt to avoid taking responsibility for your actions once they're called out?

of course it doesn't say 'God'. don't assume everyone is deceitful and stupid and out to recruit you, so mr. intensee can relax. people can draw their own conclusions of what the research paper says.

Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant
pertinent quotes -
pg 4
"The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an
external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state? We will discuss this in greater detail in Section 6."
----------------------------------------------
then Section 6, pg 20
"Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation".

(February 20, 2014 at 1:09 am)snowtracks Wrote: of course it doesn't say 'God'. don't assume everyone is deceitful and stupid and out to recruit you, so mr. intensee can relax. people can draw their own conclusions of what the research paper says.

It's not about what the report says, it's about what you presented it as implying, without bothering to mention the religious position of the authors. You were lying by omission, and I don't exactly take kindly to that.

(February 20, 2014 at 1:54 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 20, 2014 at 1:09 am)snowtracks Wrote: of course it doesn't say 'God'. don't assume everyone is deceitful and stupid and out to recruit you, so mr. intensee can relax. people can draw their own conclusions of what the research paper says.

It's not about what the report says, it's about what you presented it as implying, without bothering to mention the religious position of the authors. You were lying by omission, and I don't exactly take kindly to that.

looks like a fundamental principle needs to be stated which is: atheists don't believe in intelligent design.
the reason i posted the research paper is that these are atheists authors (wouldn't make much sense to post if they weren't but that's beside the point). now, if it needs to be clarified that atheists and intelligent design are mutually exclusive, i wish to be clear on that , when you read this research paper keep in mind that the authors are atheist that don't believe in IE.
now, if anyone misunderstood the research paper and were converted to believe in the biblical God due to the fact that they now know that the atheist authors don't believe in IE, you're free without impunity to convert back with no question asked.
-----------------------------------
but to the the authors credit (who are atheists), there exist the possibility...... after all, they are using the the words: 'intervened', 'reason'.
Section 6, pg 20
"Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation".

I read somewhere once that stated you could theoretically set off a Big Bang in your own basement. It wouldn't cause any issues here because it would expand in it's own space-time outside of our own universe. Don't ask me where I read that. I only vaguely remember it.

That would be a trip, wouldn't it? A Universe full of creatures talking about their god who created the universe. Turns out "god" was George down the street tinkering in his basement with a few little experiments.

(February 21, 2014 at 10:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote: looks like a fundamental principle needs to be stated which is: atheists don't believe in intelligent design.
the reason i posted the research paper is that these are atheists authors (wouldn't make much sense to post if they weren't but that's beside the point). now, if it needs to be clarified that atheists and intelligent design are mutually exclusive, i wish to be clear on that , when you read this research paper keep in mind that the authors are atheist that don't believe in IE.
now, if anyone misunderstood the research paper and were converted to believe in the biblical God due to the fact that they now know that the atheist authors don't believe in IE, you're free without impunity to convert back with no question asked.

Oh, so you weren't lying, you're just stupid. Got it.

Atheists don't believe in gods, but gods aren't the only process through which intelligent design might manifest, and so your initial premise was wrong from the get go. Panspermia is still a possibility, but more importantly, atheists will generally just stop at the "we don't know yet," stage of having a position on origins, without taking the extra step forward that you do.

(February 14, 2014 at 1:25 am)snowtracks Wrote: in this physics paper, Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant, it says on the page 2 that "Some unknown
agent" initially started the inflaton. wonder what that's all about?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013v3.pdf

http://gizmodo.com/our-universe-might-ju...1410271260


Scientists are proposing a radical new way of think about how the universe began. In a new imagining of the Big Bang theory, they think it could have been the result of a four-dimensional star collapsing in on itself to form a black hole, which then proceeded to spew its guts out and, kindly, form our universe.

The standard Big Bang theory has some limitations. The singularity—the idea that everything came from essentially nowhere—is one of them. The fact that the universe is at an almost uniform temperature is another, because that doesn't square with the speed at which the universe has expanded. So physicists often ponder alternative theories that could explain the origin of our universe.

And that's just what Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, has done. Here's, roughly, what he proposes:
Canada, has done. Here's, roughly, what he proposes:

So, according to the theory, our universe is the vomited-up guts of a 4D black hole. The expansion of the event horizon explains our universe's expansion; the fact that its creation stems from another 4D universe explains the weird temperature uniformity. You can take a second to process all that, it's okay.

Of course, it's speculative; it's pretty tricky, after all, knowing for sure what happened at the birth of our universe, and the work's yet to be peer reviewed, but the researchers think it has promise. There's nothing comforting in the notion that we're all just spatters of stellar vomit. [arXiv via

---

Snowy, you saying 'Atheists don't believe in gods' is like if I said 'Snowy doesn't believe in Bigfoot'.

Of course we don't believe in things we cannot confirm with reality.

Show me legit physical proof in our physical world for Bigfoot and I'll believe in Bigfoot.