[quote=cheeze]syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.[/quote] The Universe always existed, will always exist, any point in time can be defined in terms of the present, except a beginning or an end.

Quote from cheeze

syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.

The Universe always existed, will always exist, any point in time can be defined in terms of the present, except a beginning or an end.

[quote=cheeze]syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.[/quote] Can you also inform me with, how do we know that its infinte? We only have rocks / data from space (water in asteroids) that date back a number of years ago. The asteroid that was from lets say 1000 + years from what the earliest one we know, could be lightyears away. Some would be destroyed / impacted on plantes / other asteroids. Infinite? "The oldest star clusters whose age we can estimate are about 12 to 15 billions years old. So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, [B][I]but probably not more than 20 billion years old[/I][/B]." - http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html ( somewheres near the bottom )

Quote from cheeze

syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.

Can you also inform me with, how do we know that its infinte? We only have rocks / data from space (water in asteroids) that date back a number of years ago. The asteroid that was from lets say 1000 + years from what the earliest one we know, could be lightyears away. Some would be destroyed / impacted on plantes / other asteroids.

Infinite?

"The oldest star clusters whose age we can estimate are about 12 to 15 billions years old.
So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, but probably not more than 20 billion years old." - http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html ( somewheres near the bottom )

[quote=Syphon][quote=cheeze]syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.[/quote] The Universe always existed, will always exist, any point in time can be defined in terms of the present, except a beginning or an end.[/quote] I would like you to go back in time, approaching infinity. Tell me where you'll end up. [quote]Can you also inform me with, how do we know that its infinte? We only have rocks / data from space (water in asteroids) that date back a number of years ago. The asteroid that was from lets say 1000 + years from what the earliest one we know, could be lightyears away. Some would be destroyed / impacted on plantes / other asteroids.[/quote] Just because you don't understand doesn't mean others don't understand.

Quote from Syphon

Quote from cheeze

syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.

The Universe always existed, will always exist, any point in time can be defined in terms of the present, except a beginning or an end.

I would like you to go back in time, approaching infinity. Tell me where you'll end up.

Quote

Can you also inform me with, how do we know that its infinte? We only have rocks / data from space (water in asteroids) that date back a number of years ago. The asteroid that was from lets say 1000 + years from what the earliest one we know, could be lightyears away. Some would be destroyed / impacted on plantes / other asteroids.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean others don't understand.

Correct I don't understand it, but I do know what you mean. Heres another from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe "Current observations suggest that this is about 13.73 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 120 million years." Who really knows what the actual uncertainty could be, but that far less then infinty.

Correct I don't understand it, but I do know what you mean.

Heres another from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

"Current observations suggest that this is about 13.73 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 120 million years."

Who really knows what the actual uncertainty could be, but that far less then infinty.

[quote=Brontobyte][quote=cheeze]syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.[/quote] Can you also inform me with, how do we know that its infinte? We only have rocks / data from space (water in asteroids) that date back a number of years ago. The asteroid that was from lets say 1000 + years from what the earliest one we know, could be lightyears away. Some would be destroyed / impacted on plantes / other asteroids. Infinite? "The oldest star clusters whose age we can estimate are about 12 to 15 billions years old. So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, [B][I]but probably not more than 20 billion years old[/I][/B]." - http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html ( somewheres near the bottom )[/quote] We don't! This is all a hypothetical. I don't believe the Universe is infinite.

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from cheeze

syphon, explain how an infinite timeline would work.

Can you also inform me with, how do we know that its infinte? We only have rocks / data from space (water in asteroids) that date back a number of years ago. The asteroid that was from lets say 1000 + years from what the earliest one we know, could be lightyears away. Some would be destroyed / impacted on plantes / other asteroids.

Infinite?

"The oldest star clusters whose age we can estimate are about 12 to 15 billions years old.
So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, but probably not more than 20 billion years old." - http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html ( somewheres near the bottom )

We don't! This is all a hypothetical. I don't believe the Universe is infinite.

I am going to make a statement here. I do not want anyone to misinterpret it, as I personally am a die-hard atheist, but it should be said. [SIZE=14]YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN OMNIPOTENT BEING[/SIZE] It's not possible. Anything omnipotent can, by definition, change the rules of logic and/or hide all evidence for its existence. In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

I am going to make a statement here. I do not want anyone to misinterpret it, as I personally am a die-hard atheist, but it should be said.

YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN OMNIPOTENT BEING

It's not possible. Anything omnipotent can, by definition, change the rules of logic and/or hide all evidence for its existence. In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

[quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

[quote=Brontobyte][quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.[/quote] Too bad it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not discussing god now. Go away.

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

Too bad it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not discussing god now. Go away.

[quote=Brontobyte][quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.[/quote] Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen. :><:

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen.

[quote=JordanN][quote=Brontobyte][quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.[/quote] Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen. :><:[/quote] Actually you can logically rule out most gods. Only the most broadest definitions of god are "plausible" or [I]logically [/I]consistent. This argument made me laugh, in a good way. I like to read threads at IIDB, because the posts there are just so much better. [QUOTE]Well, first off, ask your friend how they know that God is not bounded by logic. No evidence whatsoever could prove this because one would have to use logic to prove this. By using logic to prove this, the person admits that God is in fact bounded by logic. Usually, however, this point will fail to make its mark because most believers don't care too much when it comes to evidence. They can always say that they have faith or whatever. (I take it you know how to handle the faith reply.) So, as a further point, I would argue that this makes god fully unintelligible. God cannot be understood whatsoever. If this is the case, then the word God is meaningless. What is God? Well I don't know, he's not bounded by logic. Note that the phrase "not bounded by logic" makes no sense whatsoever. This is as meaningless to us as "outside of space and time". (which is something god is also.) So, since the word "god" is meaningless, the only rational position to hold is to lack a belief in god. Also, it becomes impossible to believe in god. In order to believe in something, one must at least be able to say what that thing is. However, this isn't the case with God ergo, your friend can't be a theist anymore. (If your friend tries to explain any aspect of god whatsoever, you can always reply with "If God's above logic, how do you know that?" For whatever reason they give you, it's automatically invalidated because of their statement that god is above logic.) So, yes that ought to stop that nonsense. [/QUOTE]http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=69524 The following posts are good too.

Quote from JordanN

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen.

Actually you can logically rule out most gods. Only the most broadest definitions of god are "plausible" or logically consistent.

This argument made me laugh, in a good way. I like to read threads at IIDB, because the posts there are just so much better.

Quote

Well, first off, ask your friend how they know that God is not bounded by logic. No evidence whatsoever could prove this because one would have to use logic to prove this. By using logic to prove this, the person admits that God is in fact bounded by logic.

Usually, however, this point will fail to make its mark because most believers don't care too much when it comes to evidence. They can always say that they have faith or whatever. (I take it you know how to handle the faith reply.)

So, as a further point, I would argue that this makes god fully unintelligible. God cannot be understood whatsoever.
If this is the case, then the word God is meaningless. What is God? Well I don't know, he's not bounded by logic. Note that the phrase "not bounded by logic" makes no sense whatsoever. This is as meaningless to us as "outside of space and time". (which is something god is also.)
So, since the word "god" is meaningless, the only rational position to hold is to lack a belief in god.
Also, it becomes impossible to believe in god. In order to believe in something, one must at least be able to say what that thing is. However, this isn't the case with God ergo, your friend can't be a theist anymore.
(If your friend tries to explain any aspect of god whatsoever, you can always reply with "If God's above logic, how do you know that?" For whatever reason they give you, it's automatically invalidated because of their statement that god is above logic.)

So, yes that ought to stop that nonsense.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=69524

The following posts are good too.

[quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep]No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.[/quote] Are you telling me that creation is impossible?[/quote] I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.

Quote from cheeze

Quote from AntiSleep

No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.

Are you telling me that creation is impossible?

I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.

[quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep]No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.[/quote] Are you telling me that creation is impossible?[/quote] I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.[/quote] I never asserted anything.

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from cheeze

Quote from AntiSleep

No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.

Are you telling me that creation is impossible?

I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.

I never asserted anything.

[quote=Brontobyte][QUOTE]Fine Prove it. [/QUOTE] Heres the best way to define infinity, Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. :D Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.[/quote] You'll eventually hit Planck length and be unable to go any further. There is a shortest distance at which you can not divide by; Your concept is wrong.

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote

Fine

Prove it.

Heres the best way to define infinity,

Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.

You'll eventually hit Planck length and be unable to go any further. There is a shortest distance at which you can not divide by; Your concept is wrong.

[quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep]No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.[/quote] Are you telling me that creation is impossible?[/quote] I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.[/quote] I never asserted anything.[/quote] You asserted, or at least implied your belief in creationism, on the grounds that it could explain the origin of life, and have failed to show the how and why.

Quote from cheeze

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from cheeze

Quote from AntiSleep

No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.

Are you telling me that creation is impossible?

I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.

I never asserted anything.

You asserted, or at least implied your belief in creationism, on the grounds that it could explain the origin of life, and have failed to show the how and why.

[quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep]No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.[/quote] Are you telling me that creation is impossible?[/quote] I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.[/quote] I never asserted anything.[/quote] You asserted, or at least implied your belief in creationism[/quote] [SIZE=18]HAHA[/SIZE]

[quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep]No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.[/quote] Are you telling me that creation is impossible?[/quote] I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.[/quote] I never asserted anything.[/quote] You asserted, or at least implied your belief in creationism, on the grounds that it could explain the origin of life, and have failed to show the how and why.[/quote] Lulz K. :lol:

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from cheeze

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from cheeze

Quote from AntiSleep

No, you don't explain it, because you never describe how it was done. This is not explaining something, this is giving up trying to explain something.

Are you telling me that creation is impossible?

I am saying the story of creation doesn't explain anything about the origin of life on earth, or elsewhere if the panspermia hypothesis is considered. The burden of proof is on you to show supernatural involvement.

I never asserted anything.

You asserted, or at least implied your belief in creationism, on the grounds that it could explain the origin of life, and have failed to show the how and why.

Lulz K.

One thing I've learned over the years. [QUOTE]In Science, it is impossible to say if something is true, but it is easy to show that it is false. In Religion, it is easy to say that something is true, but impossible to say that it is false.[/QUOTE] Science can easily prove something wrong, by means of experimentation. However, when peoples beliefs are involved, you can tell them as many times as you want, but to them, they'll still be right.

One thing I've learned over the years.

Quote

In Science, it is impossible to say if something is true, but it is easy to show that it is false. In Religion, it is easy to say that something is true, but impossible to say that it is false.

Science can easily prove something wrong, by means of experimentation. However, when peoples beliefs are involved, you can tell them as many times as you want, but to them, they'll still be right.

[quote=devilesk][quote=Brontobyte][quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.[/quote] Too bad it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not discussing god now. Go away.[/quote] Orly? [quote=JordanN][quote=Brontobyte][quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.[/quote] Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen. :><:[/quote] Well Agamemnon said it better. :D

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

Too bad it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not discussing god now. Go away.

Orly?

Quote from JordanN

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen.

Well Agamemnon said it better.

Most of the holy books and interpretations are self-contradictory.

Most of the holy books and interpretations are self-contradictory.

[quote=Brontobyte][quote=devilesk][quote=Brontobyte][quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.[/quote] Too bad it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not discussing god now. Go away.[/quote] Orly? [quote=JordanN][quote=Brontobyte][quote=Lord Agamemnon]In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.[/quote] Bravo! Well said! :D That actually makes alot of sence.[/quote] Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen. :><:[/quote] Well Agamemnon said it better. :D[/quote] JordanN takes an "insightful" statement and makes it meaningless with the illogical stupidity surrounding it. In other words, in the context of everything else JordanN says it loses it's proper meaning. He doesn't even know what it [I]means[/I], and he only uses it as justification for his belief. At best it's the crappiest reason to believe anything. You can literally apply that statement to [B]everything[/B].

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

Too bad it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not discussing god now. Go away.

Orly?

Quote from JordanN

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Lord Agamemnon

In essence, it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it is also impossible to prove that one does without resorting to circular logic.

Bravo! Well said! That actually makes alot of sence.

Yeah that's right. When I first mentioned ,"You can't disprove something that can't be proved or disproved" you ignore it but when Agamemnon says it you listen.

Well Agamemnon said it better.

JordanN takes an "insightful" statement and makes it meaningless with the illogical stupidity surrounding it. In other words, in the context of everything else JordanN says it loses it's proper meaning. He doesn't even know what it means, and he only uses it as justification for his belief. At best it's the crappiest reason to believe anything. You can literally apply that statement to everything.