jixmixfix
Permabanned
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,278
You are really in no position to gauge that.Actually you're less aware.
What for?The forest would still exist but it still requires an observer.
Actually you're less aware.
The forest would still exist but it still requires an observer.
I see lots of hydrogen and oxygen there too.![]()
How so?You are really in no position to gauge that.
What for?
Are you playing devils advocate?
Those words were created sometime recently. What word would you use if you wanted to dezcribe the substance humans were formed from if you were alive thousands of years ago?
So you're saying the bible was right? simply because it was stated thousands of years ago?
By that logic a house wouldnt grow mold unless you watched it.
You cannot see into my mind, nor, apparently, understand the nuances of what I say. I know because they are my thoughts and my words.How so?
True, but that has never been in question.For it to exist in our minds.
Does existence produce our minds or do our minds produce existence?
You cannot see into my mind, nor, apparently, understand the nuances of what I say. I know because they are my thoughts and my words.
True, but that has never been in question.
Atheists believe both happens simultaneously.
Christians believe "it" simply is.
I think they are the same. How do you suppose time existed before it began with the big bang? If 'it' existed in other universes, is it the same 'time'? Do we know anything about it, these universes themselves being hypothetical? So, what we know (as in: what we have sufficient reason to believe) is that time began with the big bang, that there is no 'before'.No because first you said Time itself began with the big bang, then you contradict yourself and say "time in our universe began with the big bang" which is what I was proving all along.
I think they are the same. How do you suppose time existed before it began with the big bang? If 'it' existed in other universes, is it the same 'time'? Do we know anything about it, these universes themselves being hypothetical? So, what we know (as in: what we have sufficient reason to believe) is that time began with the big bang, that there is no 'before'.
So how am I wrong by saying the forest requires an observer to exist? It's an age old question that can't be answered really.
Then tell me why instead of merely alluding to arguments.No the beginning of time itself and the beginning time in our universe are NOT the same. If you studied anything about what Stephen Hawking says about black holes and M theory you would know that the explanation of other universes provides evidence of what is happening in our own universe. And if you were correct then where does matter go inside a black hole? black holes clearly exist in our universe.
Nonsense.Atheists view themselves as god and masters of existence.
Then tell me why instead of merely alluding to arguments.
Nonsense.
Sorry I guess your ignorance is my fault then.Then tell me why instead of merely alluding to arguments.
"Why" is the question we have to answer on our own.
Unless science finds it out.
If the Big Rip theory is right, there will "nothing" again.