Doubt?

[Twilight Hue]

Three seconds is a life time to those who enter the event horizin of the Great Abyss.

Wonder what happens during the three seconds before exiting the abyss?
I personally forgot, because I was quite young at the time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If you agree that it is animated, why can you not accept that the universal animating force is inherent in all that exist?

I think there is confusion here regarding cause and effect.

 

[linwood]

Yes and I still think your definition of animated is skewed.

I have two dictionaries before me, one define "Animate: as, 'to put in motion,' the other, 'To impart motion or activiy to.'
Would you describe an electron in orbit around the nucleus of the atom as 'animate, or inanimate?

If you agree that it is animated, why can you not accept that the universal animating force is inherent in all that exist?

By your definition (and I`m not talking about the dictionary definition you`ve posted) there is no such thing as an inanimate object.

Every "thing" (matter) is made up of atoms, atoms have a an electromagnetic field and the "animation" you describe is a result of electric charges (if I remember my high school science classes correctly).

This is not "life" nor purposeful sentient movement.

I can"animate" a dead body with the use of electrical charges.

Does this make that dead body something more than "dead"?

 

[S-word]

By your definition (and I`m not talking about the dictionary definition you`ve posted) there is no such thing as an inanimate object.

Every "thing" (matter) is made up of atoms, atoms have a an electromagnetic field and the "animation" you describe is a result of electric charges (if I remember my high school science classes correctly).

This is not "life" nor purposeful sentient movement.

I can"animate" a dead body with the use of electrical charges.

Does this make that dead body something more than "dead"?

Go into the apparently inanimate rock until the rock is no more and all you can see is the molucules from which it is formed. Now go into the molecules until they disappear and all is but Atoms, Descend even deeper, until all you see is the boundless swirling and shimmering cloud of photons or wave particles, which have no mass or electric charge, yet they carry angular and linear momentum: they are animated.

This eternal growing cloud of particles that occupy different position in space and time, is the Boundless Cosmos that is perceived through your physical senses. Now look at the myrids of independent swirling patterns of wave particles within that boundless cloud which is a living mind, and somewhere there, you will see me.

 

[linwood]

Go into the apparently inanimate rock until the rock is no more and all you can see is the molucules from which it is formed. Now go into the molecules until they disappear and all is but Atoms, Descend even deeper, until all you see is the boundless swirling and shimmering cloud of photons or wave particles, which have no mass or electric charge, yet they carry angular and linear momentum: they are animated.

Go into the apparently inanimate dead human body until the body is no more and all you`ll see is the molecules from which it is formed.Now go into the molecules until they disappear and all is but Atoms, Descend even deeper, until all you see is the boundless swirling and shimmering cloud of photons or wave particles, which have no mass or electric charge, yet they carry angular and linear momentum: they are animated.


But that body is still dead.

 

[S-word]

Quote....linwood...Every "thing" (matter) is made up of atoms, atoms have a an electromagnetic field and the "animation" you describe is a result of electric charges (if I remember my high school science classes correctly).
How come photons which have no mass or Electric charge, carry angular and linear momentum?
Quote....linwood...Go into the apparently inanimate dead human body until the body is no more and all you`ll see is the molecules from which it is formed.Now go into the molecules until they disappear and all is but Atoms, Descend even deeper, until all you see is the boundless swirling and shimmering cloud of photons or wave particles, which have no mass or electric charge, yet they carry angular and linear momentum: they are animated.

But that body is still dead.

Death is life’s greatest illusion. While the life force remained in that body, all the information taken in through its physical senses in its interaction with all that the singularity of origin has become; was recorded in the invisible cloud of swirling wave particles that is the eternal evolving mind, that our senses perceive as the boundless cosmos.

Once the eternal life force of the singularity, in who we dwell and who dwells in we, has left that conglomeration of Atoms, which is but one of the countless myriads of independent swirling patterns of wave particles within the eternal evolving mind: that conglomeration of Atoms, immediately begins to decompose and return to the original universal elements, which according to your definition of animate, are inanimate, but are in fact invisible wave particles in the eternal evolving mind that is all that there is.


As all is mind, death can have no power over those who can accept and believe that this universal body will one day collapse in upon itself and enter in the seemingly bottomless pit of the great Abyss, which is the prison of all the stars and the host of heaven, and that it will be resurrected to continue on in its eternal process of growth or evolution.


They will enter into the long sleep assured of the resurrection and will awaken to continue where they left off as if time had stood still. They, who cannot accept the resurrection, will not enter into a state of rest. Those minds will burn themselves out, in the torment of unknown expectations.

Isaiah 57:1, “Good people die, and no one understands or even cares. But when good people die, no calamity can hurt them. Those who lead good lives find peace and rest in death.”

 

[Imagist]

I think that it’s pretty well documented that before the Big Bang there was neither time nor space

You think wrong. Before that, there may have been strings (string theory), other universes colliding (multiverse theory), both (string + multiverse theory), or the initial atom may have originated from the collapse of a previous iteration of our universe (cyclical universe theory). There's nothing well-documented about this.

, and that all the exists today was once condensed in the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, within the Black Hole from which we originated.

A black hole is one of many theories for the origination of the universe.

There is also the belief among the scientific and religious communities that this universe continually oscillates between a state of activity and an apparent state of non-activity.

There is by no means an agreement between the scientific and religious communities, nor have I ever heard of this oscillation. Nor would such an oscillation be meaningful, since universal non-activity is basically like freezing time; when activity starts back up it would be like the non-activity never happened.

The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. ‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that precedes the next creative day.

Now we're down to the core of this: what evidence do you have that any of these things exist?

Neither was this concept confined solely to the eastern religions, Origen, who was well versed in the writings of Enoch, was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD. Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. So according to Origen, there is not only evolution within the periods of universal activity but the universe itself is continually evolving.

And since Origen believes it, it must be right?

Quote....Imagist....There are two problems here:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that your childs mind is anything different from your child's brain, which is made up of the cells you speak of. Given this, you DO feel paternal feelings for your child's brain.

The soul is the animal life force; the animating principle that pervades all that is “visible and invisible.”

And where is your evidence that this animal life force is anything distinct from the biological functions of the body?

According to the Bible the soul is in the blood, (see Genesis 9:4) and it is into the universal soul which has been breathed into all living beings which are formed from the universal elements, that the minds of all that the singularity of origin has become, is imprinted, as the singularity that was in the beginning, continues to evolve from the interactions between all that it has become.

According to the bible, the earth was created in seven days, so your whole creation story is nullified if we're going to start talking biblically.

Google up “The Heart is the Seat of the Mind,” then get back to me.

I got a bunch of hits about debunked beliefs. So what?

2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the universe has developed such a mind of its own. Even if such a mind did exist, its existence would not justify deification.

The mind is within the living body. You must believe that mankind who is capable of comprehending the invisible mind that is he, is not one of the things that has developed from the singularity of our origin. Do you honestly believe that the living universal body did not develop within itself the mind of man, which has gained dominion over all creatures and is Lord of creatures?

Yes.

Or do you believe that mankind is the end of the eternal process of universal growth and that a higher being has not developed, or will not develop within the Cosmos,

I believe that there is a high probability of other intelligent life forms, which might be more intelligent or adaptive than we are. However, the likelihood of such beings reaching the level of gods is so low as to be irrelevant.

a being that will gain dominion over all life forms, “Visible and Invisible.” A being who is the Most High that Mankind will bow down to.

I have no reason to believe that such a being exists or will ever exist.

In what way is the universe homeostatic? What conditions across the universe are regulated, and by what mechanisms?

In what way are the parts of the universe organized into cells (the basic unit of its life), how do they work together, and toward what goal?

Undoubtedly, you do not believe that atoms and electrons are living things, and yet this body in which I, the godhead is developing, is nothing but atoms and electrons. In what way is this conglomeration of non-living atoms and electrons homeostatic? What conditions across this body of non-living atoms and electrons are regulated, and by what mechanisms?

In the human body, we regulate temperature to about 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, by perspiring (to lower temperature) or metabolizing sugars (to raise temperature).

We regulate blood pH by modifying insulin levels.

We regulate blood salinity by our brain triggering the urge to drink water (thirst) to dilute or hunger for salt.

These are just a few examples.

The constant cosmos does exist by eating itself. Out there in the boundless reaches of interstellar space there are countless super massive black holes which are gathering all the expended cosmic energy and dying galactic bodies.

Current estimates show that on average the universe is expanding, not being gathered.

The Virgo cluster of galaxies to which we belong, are all falling into one of those super abyss’, where, one day in time, all will be gathered into that crushing void and condensed into an invisible primordial atom, which will then feed on the expended energy of the other living universal cells within the constant Cosmos, until the gravitational field will no longer be able to contain it, and it will burst forth, to be resurrected once more and continue on in its eternal process of evolution.

This is one theory, but currently the theory that the universe will end, not with a bang, but with a wimper, is more convincing. The universe is expanding, leading us to believe that the universe will suffer entropic death (everything will get too cold and far apart to interact at all).

How does the universe grow, or maintain a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism? How does a growing universe NOT violate the principle of conservation of mass/energy?

How does the universe adapt? And what conditions are there external to the universe for the universe to even adapt in response to?

To what external stimuli does the universe adapt? And what stimuli are even possible outside the universe?

The facts are: once upon a time there was only the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, which has grown into the living Cosmos that you see today, I have no need to explain how it happened, only that it did.

I'm not asking you to explain how the universe began. I'm asking you to justify your claim that the universe in any way resembles a living thing.

Where are the little baby universes that demonstrate that the universe is able to reproduce?

Look out at ‘The Pillars of Creation,’ see the death of a once mighty Light Being, who collapsed in upon itself after blasting off a percentage of its mass. Watch as the interstellar gas, dust and residue in that great cloud which is held in orbit around the unescapable mass at its centre, is formed into new stars that are being born into a new galactic body. Understand the growth of our own Milky Way Galaxy.

Okay. You still have not described a baby universe.

The long and the short of it: the universe is not a living thing. Period.

And the fool says, “There is no God.”

This is a slight misquote from the bible, which, as I mentioned earlier, totally disagrees that the big bang ever happened.

I have provided evidence for my claims, while you have merely provided more claims. Frankly, I don't find my need for things to have evidence before belief to be foolish.

 

[Imagist]

Yes and I still think your definition of animated is skewed.

I have two dictionaries before me, one define "Animate: as, 'to put in motion,' the other, 'To impart motion or activiy to.'
Would you describe an electron in orbit around the nucleus of the atom as 'animate, or inanimate?

You are quoting the verb version of the word. You should be looking for the adjective.

When it comes down to a atomic level, "orbit" is merely a conceptual crutch. "Motion" doesn't have quite the same meaning. It's more like the electrons are disappearing and reappearing in a different place at random. They AREN'T traveling in a circular orbit (if they were, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't be true). Another way to think of it is in terms of constant waves; fields exerting forces at their different valance shells.

So there could be some argument whether an electron is animate.

But in any case, we weren't talking about electrons. You said a rock was animate. And I haven't seen rocks move yet, so I wouldn't describe them as animate.

If you agree that it is animated, why can you not accept that the universal animating force is inherent in all that exist?

As noted, "animating force" is not a force recognized by any reputable scientific group that exists. We have four basic forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear.

 

[linwood]

You are quoting the verb version of the word. You should be looking for the adjective.

I would just like to point out that the dictionary definitions of "animate" given in this thread were posted by S-Word not me.

I think I messed up the quote tags in an earlier post and it looks like my quote in any following quotes.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Imagist]

I would just like to point out that the dictionary definitions of "animate" given in this thread were posted by S-Word not me.

I think I messed up the quote tags in an earlier post and it looks like my quote in any following quotes.

Sorry for any confusion.

No need to apologize, the mistake was mine.

S-word is using a lot of font and color tags which I've been stripping out to properly nest the quotes (this forum software sucks at that, by the way). Since I've been doing this manually, the process is a bit error-prone, and I added an extra tag with your name on it by accident.

 

[linwood]

No need to apologize, the mistake was mine.

S-word is using a lot of font and color tags which I've been stripping out to properly nest the quotes (this forum software sucks at that, by the way). Since I've been doing this manually, the process is a bit error-prone, and I added an extra tag with your name on it by accident.

No problem.

I`ve just been having alot of difficulty with my manual tags here and figured it was just me again.

 

[Imagist]

No problem.

I`ve just been having alot of difficulty with my manual tags here and figured it was just me again.

As a former web developer, I must say I find the software rather difficult. If you use the WYSIWYG mode, the tags get all screwy, and nested quoting is unnecessarily difficult.

 

[S-word]

Quote...Imagist..... A black hole is one of many theories for the origination of the universe.
Show me another, which is more widely accepted among the scientific community.

Quote...Imagist..... I have no reason to believe that such a being exists, or will ever evolve, who will gain dominion over all previous life forms, or will ever exist.
Then you don’t believe in the evolution of the species, am I correct?

Quote...S-word...Do you honestly believe that the living universal body did not develop within itself, the mind of man? Quote...Imagist..... Yes!
If as you claim, the mind of man did not develop from and within the universal body, much the same as your mind has developed from and within that conglomeration of animated atoms that you call your living body, then where and from what, did the mind of mankind develop?

Quote...Imagist..... According to the bible, the earth was created in seven days, so your whole creation story is nullified if we're going to start talking biblically.
No, according to the Bible, our world was created in six periods of universal activity, in the seventh period, the Logos or singularity From which all things came into existence, By which all thing were brought into existence, and For which, all things exist, rested.

Quote...Imagist..... Current estimates show that on average the universe is expanding, not being gathered. Our Milky Way Galaxy has grown to the size that it is by feeding on lesser galactic bodies as is evidenced by the amount of lesser black holes that surround the super black hole that anchors our Galaxy in space.

It is also believed that one day it will devour the two minor galaxies that orbit our galaxy, which are called, the Large Magellanic Cloud (Nebecula Major) and the Small Magellanic Cloud (Nebecula Minor).

The Virgo cluster of galaxies is but one of the many Great Gathers out there in interstellar space, into which billions upon billions of galaxies are falling, including our milky Way Galaxy, which is feeding on lesser galactic bodies in its descent into the great abyss that is the prison of all the stars and the host of heaven; even that big and beautiful multi celled body of Andromeda, which is heading straight at us on a collision course, may be united with our Milky way Galaxy.

These Great Gathers, are the Great Abyss’ into which was crushed into invisible dense and hot atoms, the greater percentage of the Mass of those super duper first generation stars that were created in the first period of universal activity when only Light bodies, were created. And it is to these Great Gathers from which the cosmos originated, that the galaxies that have been formed from the residue of those massive super Novas are being gathered. For all creation is being called back to its origin, from which the new universal bodies will be created.

As each first generation stars came into existence in sequence, so too do they enter their rest period in their proper order, so that at all times, the eternal and boundless cosmic body, has active universal cells which are expending their energy, and resting cells which feed on the expended energy until such time as they burst forth into light and life once more, as the other depleted cells in their sequential order, enter their period of rest.

Quote...Imagist..... You think wrong. Before that, there may have been strings (string theory), other universes colliding (multiverse theory), both (string + multiverse theory), or the initial atom may have originated from the collapse of a previous iteration of our universe (cyclical universe theory). There's nothing well-documented about this.
Do you think that Stephen Hawkins, who believes that he has all but proven the Big Bang theory to be correct, saw his string theory, as something which occurs before or after the Big Bang?

The cyclical universe theory, is one and the same as the oscillating theory, wherein the universe goes through an eternal cycle of Big Bangs, and Big Crunches, or as I have said, “a universe that eternally oscillates between a state of being and an apparent state of non-being, which period of rest appears to our finite minds as an eternity.

Quote...Imagist..... This is one theory, but currently the theory that the universe will end, not with a bang, but with a wimper, is more convincing. The universe is expanding, leading us to believe that the universe will suffer entropic death (everything will get too cold and far apart to interact at all).
To begin with, universes do not end with a Big Bang, but a Big Crunch, but yes, there is that theory which is not widely accepted, yet according to that theory, everything will eventually break down from molecules to atoms to sub-atoms particles and finally into the nothingness from which they believe the cosmos originated. But if, according to their belief, the cosmos was created from nothing, then they must believe that it is possible for a new cosmos to develop from the nothingness into which this one, according to their belief, is descending.
I will come back at a later date to answer any of your questions that have not been covered here, but for now, my available time on the computer is running out, so until then, be happy.

 

[linwood]

S-Word,

Any and all evidence you`ve provided at best falls under the heading of "Argument from Authority".

Do you have any actual emprical evidence to support your views?

I have in the past disagreed with such "luminaries" as Steven Hawkings.
In fact Steven Hawkings has been known to disagree with Steven Hawkings.

He is a theoretical physicist and he himself knows his musings aren`t empirical fact.

 

[logician]

The only doubt I have have is the slight possibility that "god" is in a sense a universal consciousness, i.e. there is no existence w/o consiousness. Other than that, no doubts.

 

[Imagist]

Show me another, which is more widely accepted among the scientific community.

Look at my previous post. The black hole theory is basically the cyclical universe theory. Currently, I think the multiverse theory is most accepted but I don't have any statistics to back this up. I do know that the cyclical universe theory is not the dominant theory because it would seem to require a collapsing universe rather than an expanding one.

I have no reason to believe that such a being exists, or will ever evolve, who will gain dominion over all previous life forms, or will ever exist.

Then you don’t believe in the evolution of the species, am I correct?

You are incorrect. I firmly believe in evolution. I also understand it, which you obviously don't if you think that evolution necessarily leads to gods.

1. The mechanics of evolution require physical and chemical reactions which by their very nature negate the possibility of the transcendence of physical form (invisibility).
2. If a trait does not improve the chances of reproductive success and/or survival, it could only cause speciation by a very long chance. The traits of a god do not improve the chances of reproductive success and/or survival: in fact, they are a strong negative influence. The powers humans have now are in danger of wiping us out. More power would only increase that effect.
3. Evolution is not always an "improvement" process in the sense that you would expect. Sometimes simpler is better. Evolution is not a steady march toward more complexity; it is often rather the opposite. Take ostriches; they evolved flight and then lost it. This probably happened because they grew, and as they grew they needed a bigger runway and needed to be faster runners to get started flying. They evolved to be faster runners, but eventually they were fast enough runners that there was no reason for them to fly at all -- it took too much energy and they were fast enough on the ground anyway. The result: less complexity.

Do you honestly believe that the living universal body did not develop within itself, the mind of man?

Yes!

If as you claim, the mind of man did not develop from and within the universal body, much the same as your mind has developed from and within that conglomeration of animated atoms that you call your living body, then where and from what, did the mind of mankind develop?[/quote]

You are still making a distinction between the mind and brain which I do not agree with. The brain developed as a survival mechanism. Problem-solving is an immensely useful skill for reproduction and survival.

According to the bible, the earth was created in seven days, so your whole creation story is nullified if we're going to start talking biblically.

No, according to the Bible, our world was created in six periods of universal activity, in the seventh period, the Logos or singularity from which all things came into existence, by which all thing were brought into existence, and for which, all things exist, rested.

The word used is "days", not "periods" or "periods of universal activity". The other word is "god", not "logos" or "singularity". And for the record, so that you don't try to pull any Bill Clinton shenanigans: "is" means "is".

The sentence I have you quoted as saying above demonstrates so little grasp of reality that I cannot help but suspect you are playing some sort of trick on me. I have read the bible and I know what it says: it doesn't say what you say it says.

Current estimates show that on average the universe is expanding, not being gathered.

Our Milky Way Galaxy has grown to the size that it is by feeding on lesser galactic bodies as is evidenced by the amount of lesser black holes that surround the super black hole that anchors our Galaxy in space.

***snip***

As each first generation stars came into existence in sequence, so too do they enter their rest period in their proper order, so that at all times, the eternal and boundless cosmic body, has active universal cells which are expending their energy, and resting cells which feed on the expended energy until such time as they burst forth into light and life once more, as the other depleted cells in their sequential order, enter their period of rest.

Some of what you say is true, some is not. None of it supports what you're trying to say.

You think wrong. Before that, there may have been strings (string theory), other universes colliding (multiverse theory), both (string + multiverse theory), or the initial atom may have originated from the collapse of a previous iteration of our universe (cyclical universe theory). There's nothing well-documented about this.

Do you think that Stephen Hawkins, who believes that he has all but proven the Big Bang theory to be correct, saw his string theory, as something which occurs before or after the Big Bang? [/quote]

This is completely irrelevant. Stephen Hawkings didn't singlehandedly prove the big bang. And string theory isn't a theory of origin -- strings are still interacting according to the theory. The big bang was merely one of the many results of these interactions.

The cyclical universe theory, is one and the same as the oscillating theory, wherein the universe goes through an eternal cycle of Big Bangs, and Big Crunches, or as I have said, “a universe that eternally oscillates between a state of being and an apparent state of non-being, which period of rest appears to our finite minds as an eternity.

If you're going to use scientific terms, use them correctly. Your bizarre ideas seem to rise from your complete misuse of terms. From this post on, I will not respond to a point you make using terms incorrectly, but will instead correct your usage of the terms.

1. "Oscillating theory" does not exist: it's "oscillating universe theory".
2. You did not say being and non-being, you said action and non-action. These action and being are non-trivially different.
3. A period of non-being would not be perceived as an eternity; it would not be perceived at all, since that which is not cannot perceive.
4. Cyclical or oscillating universe theory is currently not the dominant theory, due to the expanding universe problem.
5. Cyclical or oscillating universe theory does not include any state of non-being or non-action.
6. Non-being and non-action applied on a universal scale are meaningless, since any possible observers would either not be or not act (observe) so the period of non-being or non-action would effectively never have happened. If you continue to insist on this idea, I will merely copy and paste this text.

This is one theory, but currently the theory that the universe will end, not with a bang, but with a wimper, is more convincing. The universe is expanding, leading us to believe that the universe will suffer entropic death (everything will get too cold and far apart to interact at all).

To begin with, universes do not end with a Big Bang, but a Big Crunch, but yes, there is that theory which is not widely accepted, yet according to that theory, everything will eventually break down from molecules to atoms to sub-atoms particles and finally into the nothingness from which they believe the cosmos originated. But if, according to their belief, the cosmos was created from nothing, then they must believe that it is possible for a new cosmos to develop from the nothingness into which this one, according to their belief, is descending.

1. No, according to this theory, nothing will break down at all: it will still exist, just too far away from anything to have any effect on anything else.
2. These theories do not believe that the universe came from nothing, they believe that it came from string interaction or universe collisions.

When you do come back, I have three requests:
1. Please stop using red and ellipses. It's a pain to nest quotes this way.
2. Please use words and phrases to communicate their standard meanings. Don't say singularity, mind, cosmos, animating force, universal body, etc. when you mean god. Just say god. You don't need to say "infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, within the Black Hole from which we originated" when you mean "big bang". Just say "big bang". That way everybody knows what you're talking about.
3. Please shorten your posts to say one thing and say it clearly. I hit the 10,000 character post length limit trying to respond to your ridiculously long post.

 

[Imagist]

Any and all evidence you`ve provided at best falls under the heading of "Argument from Authority".

The authority in question seems to be S-word.

 

[linwood]

The authority in question seems to be S-word.

Yes for the most part but he is taking a very misunderstood knowledge of many, many scientific theories supported by researchers and scientists and twisting them or it seems purposely misunderstanding them in order to fit them into his previously conceived belief system.

It`s quite entertaining actually, just a little frustrating at times.

Perhaps an "argument from misrepresenting authority" would have been a better descriptive.

 

[pastafarian420]

honestly it was hard to stop asking my ceiling why everything is in such horrid condition.Religion is quite like a disease of the mind.It is a form of child abuse. Get twenty young children in a small room and tell them there is some being watching them at all times and if they don't believe he's there he's going to torture them for eternity. Once i applied common sense i relized (more and more) how all religions are forms of modern tribalism. Take one part scared simple people, add in a dash of undeserved guilt, add in a pinch of fearwith a side of "god needs your money" and viola! it's starting to look religious already! opps! forgot to simmer in some logical fallices to bring everything to bind.....

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Why is that that SO often the theists among us show either little and/or confused knowledge of cosmology?

They expound as if they actually knew the subject matter but within 50 words they show they have NO idea what they saying.:cover: