Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[genkaus]

The Universe had a beginning, therefore it was caused by something. You have three choices

1 something from nothing
2 infinite regress of causes
3 an eternal first cause

The first two are logically incoherent. Not only this, but we know that time space energy and matter had a finite beginning, which means the cause of the Universe transcends all of those things. I think all of that, not withstanding the eternal first cause being the only coherent option, is evidence that points very powerfully to a transcendent Creator.

Your argument fails at its premise.

How do you know that the universe had a beginning?
Further the statement "time, space, energy and matter had a finite beginning" is self-refuting.

[brotherlylove]

Answer the question or fuck off moron.

I believe in absolute truth, phil. Opinion doesn't determine what the truth is. I simply was curious to see what the poster would say.

Were you always an arrogant and dumb asshole?

Not that I am aware of. You still haven't provided any proof of the inverse. It's just a game based on how you define the number limit.

[Phil]

It's just a game based on how you define the number limit.

Arrogant christoholic thinks he knows better than Mathematicians. This is comedy gold.

[brotherlylove]

The Universe had a beginning, therefore it was caused by something. You have three choices

1 something from nothing
2 infinite regress of causes
3 an eternal first cause

The first two are logically incoherent. Not only this, but we know that time space energy and matter had a finite beginning, which means the cause of the Universe transcends all of those things. I think all of that, not withstanding the eternal first cause being the only coherent option, is evidence that points very powerfully to a transcendent Creator.

Your argument fails at its premise.

How do you know that the universe had a beginning?
Further the statement "time, space, energy and matter had a finite beginning" is self-refuting.

I'll throw out scientific evidence to start. It is the view of modern science that the Universe had a beginning and that time space matter and energy are in fact finite. Why do you believe this is self-refuting?

---

It's just a game based on how you define the number limit.

Arrogant christoholic thinks he knows better than Mathematicians. This is comedy gold.

I don't know anything about math, I simply have heard tell from people who do understand mathematics that it is really about how you define the number limit. In any case, if you do know anything about mathematics, can you demonstrate the inverse? If you can't, your proposition of 1 + 1 = 1.999 has no proof

[Phil]

I don't know anything about math, I simply have heard tell from people who do understand mathematics that it is really about how you define the number limit. In any case, if you do know anything about mathematics, can you demonstrate the inverse? If you can't, your proposition of 1 + 1 = 1.999 has no proof

That is obvious. I gave you the link to the wikipedia page about it that has many citations and everything your idiotic mind needs. BTW, learn to read cause I did not write 1.999, I wrote 1.999.........

So once again, fuck off.

[brotherlylove]

I don't know anything about math, I simply have heard tell from people who do understand mathematics that it is really about how you define the number limit. In any case, if you do know anything about mathematics, can you demonstrate the inverse? If you can't, your proposition of 1 + 1 = 1.999 has no proof

That is obvious. I gave you the link to the wikipedia page about it that has many citations and everything your idiotic mind needs. BTW, learn to read cause I did not write 1.999, I wrote 1.999.........

So once again, fuck off.

Okay Phil. So, objective morality, do you think it exists or is it subjective?

[Phil]

The Universe had a beginning, therefore it was caused by something. You have three choices

1 something from nothing
2 infinite regress of causes
3 an eternal first cause

The first two are logically incoherent. Not only this, but we know that time space energy and matter had a finite beginning, which means the cause of the Universe transcends all of those things. I think all of that, not withstanding the eternal first cause being the only coherent option, is evidence that points very powerfully to a transcendent Creator.

Your argument fails at its premise.

How do you know that the universe had a beginning?
Further the statement "time, space, energy and matter had a finite beginning" is self-refuting.

Looks to me like this christoholic needs to read Lawrence Krauss' new book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing and a few Victor Stenger books not to mention the classic by Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe. If he read them and understood them he would never try to use such idiotic arguments. But this guy has a really thick bozone layer so I'm not convinced those books can penetrate.

---

I don't know anything about math, I simply have heard tell from people who do understand mathematics that it is really about how you define the number limit. In any case, if you do know anything about mathematics, can you demonstrate the inverse? If you can't, your proposition of 1 + 1 = 1.999 has no proof

That is obvious. I gave you the link to the wikipedia page about it that has many citations and everything your idiotic mind needs. BTW, learn to read cause I did not write 1.999, I wrote 1.999.........

So once again, fuck off.

Okay Phil. So, objective morality, do you think it exists or is it subjective?

I was speaking about truth so shove your morality bullshit up your ass. BTW, reread the last sentence you quoted then do it.

[brotherlylove]

Looks to me like this christoholic needs to read Lawrence Krauss' new book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing and a few Victor Stenger books not to mention the classic by Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe. If he read them and understood them he would never try to use such idiotic arguments. But this guy has a really thick bozone layer so I'm not convinced those books can penetrate.

So you think that something coming from nothing is logically coherent and not worse than say, magic? If you understand the subject matter, could you briefly explain how that is possible? What is your evidence to contradict the statement that out of nothing, nothing comes?

I was speaking about truth so shove your morality bullshit up your ass. BTW, reread the last sentence you quoted then do it.

So do you believe in absolute truth, or is it relative?

[Phil]

So you think that something coming from nothing is logically coherent and not worse than say, magic? If you understand the subject matter, could you briefly explain how that is possible? What is your evidence to contradict the statement that out of nothing, nothing comes?

Define nothing and do not shirk answering by giving some hypothetical concept.

So do you believe in absolute truth, or is it relative?

Of course there is objective truth. There are also subjective truths but those are more commonly called opinions and everyone has em, they are like assholes in that respect. But what does this question have to do with your assinine (intentional misspelling) suggestion that objective truth is correct by majority opinion?

[brotherlylove]

Define nothing and do not shirk answering by giving some hypothetical concept.

Nothing, as in the absence of something.

Of course there is objective truth. There are also subjective truths but those are more commonly called opinions and everyone has em, they are like assholes in that respect. But what does this question have to do with your assinine (intentional misspelling) suggestion that objective truth is correct by majority opinion?

I don't believe truth is determined by opinion. I've already stated that I believe in absolute truth.

The reason I asked is because many atheists only believe in relative truth which is a truth that is determined by opinion. Particularly, moral truths. Since you believe in objective truths, do you believe in an objective good and evil, or do you consider the terminology meaningless?