Crap Throwing Monkey

I don't. Although I could by pointing out that a collection of seemingly random events can produce very complex behavior - even on the molecular level, even if those molecules are neurotransmitters. Obviously, having neurotransmitter problems myself, that has some appeal to me. Actually, if the human body is an example of "intelligent design", the designer must have been retarded. The human body is pretty poorly engineered. For starters, who the hell puts a sewage line through a recreational area?...

By definition, if God exists, he must exist outside the universe, and thus can't be known by us, as the definition of "the universe" at its most basic is the boundary of what it's possible to know. If he exists within the universe, he's not God...because he could not have been around to create it otherwise.

Because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to attribute some mystical quality to it. That's actually the main difference between science and religion: science says we are here because the Earth's in the right place. Religion says the Earth's in the right place because we are here.

How big's a point? It's a point. Seriously. A "point" (or "singularity", if you like - the two terms are virtually synonymous in this context. Virtually, not literally) by definition has no physical size. Like I said, look up "black holes" (and don't come back to me talking about the "event horizon" being the size of a black hole. That's a boundary of effect, not a physical size.) Next question would be "how can the universe fit into a single point?" Look up quantum electrodynamics, specifically "virtual particles", the infrared and ultraviolet divergences and self-interaction of the electron. That won't answer the question...but it'll give you some idea.

Conversely, just because something happens doesn't mean there's a purpose behind it or a reason for it. Believe it or not, sometimes sh-- really does just happen.

Actually, a proof of the existence of God does follow out of what I posted above. And, as I said, the proof is left to the student.

Not if I have a target.

But that's what a singularity is. A point. So that's the point. The singularity. The point's the singularity, because the singularity's a point. Seriously, though...if I could explain THAT on a message board, people wouldn't have won Nobel Prizes for it. Best place to start learning about it would be...I don't know, try black holes. Then Hawking radiation. Then maybe look up quantum vacuum energy.

I'm not going to be stupid to argue about what you believe...but it's entirely possible that the universe and us "just happend randomly". Frankly, there's no law that forbids it, and systems that exhibit randomness at a micro level often exhibit very complex organized behavior at a macro level - best example I can think of off the top of my head is water coming out of a faucet under pressure. Or even better: the stock market. In fact, even presuming the universe is nothing more than a random quantum vacuum fluctuation, the probability of that "random" even happening eventually becomes a virtual certainty if you wait long enough. Ergo, the "creation" of the universe was not a random event, but a certainty through virtue of being random. Holy Paradox, Batman! And, in the spirit of my physics education: The Proof of the Existence of God from the above lemmas is left as an exercise for the student.

The singularity is the point.

IT'S STILL AN ENTRENCHING TOOL TO ME, DAMMIT!

2nd Law of Thermodynamics...the principle known as "entropy". But you're misusing: the principle is that systems tend towards their lowest-energy ground state over time, and in doing so become disorganized. The caveats to which being: it doesn't necessarily hold true on all scales (time and distance), and you can put energy into the system and organize it. Ergo, even though the universe as a whole tends towards decreasing organization, isolated pockets of it - for example, a planet - can become more organized in the short term (keeping in mind that billions of years is short term on the scale of the universe), particularly with an influx of energy (e.g. solar radiation).

There doesn't have to be determinism involved. Put simply, in deference to you, of course we'd evolve on a planet that's ideal for us...because we couldn't in an environment that would kill us. The simple fact that we exist in a system that permits us to exist is a tautological; it proves nothing except our existence.

That would be the singularity.

That's not that new, and it doesn't make the Big Bang theory obsolete. All they're really conjecturing is whether or not the universe is finite or infinite - i.e. a closed or open multi-dimensional curve. They're also dusting off the old theory that the universe is nothing more than a quantum vacuum fluctuation with zero net energy. Overall, though...there's nothing new in that link...

Rumor is this thread will never die; it'll just get cut and signed to the Jags message board at bbs.buccaneers.com...

Oh yeah...well I was in the bottom half of the top half of my class in one of the top 100 schools in Indiana...

Again? I thought you could only do that once...

No...to provoke them. Because I've lived in three different places in Jersey, and I've never been attacked by a telephone pole...

But still...he's no Tedy Bruschi.

Well Clinton did it too!

Yeah, legal issues. It probably had nothing to do with you not having enough intelligence to even type "happy". BTW...the South African G6 set a new record for range last month: 75km, with a rocket-assist base-bleed shell. Beat the PZH2000 by a good 20km. And it was apparently very accurate as well.

One thing I've heard is that the propellant in Fix-a-Flat is actually flammable, and there's a not insignificant risk of ignition by a spark when a mechanic removes the tire. I don't actually know that (i.e. I don't have a can of the crap in front of me to check what the propellant actually is), and I suspect if it were true they would have changed their propellant a long while ago anyhow...but there you go. Do with the rumor what you will.

But on the plus side, Favre now holds the record for the longest running portrayal of Hamlet...

No, you said... So you said he's a friend of yours, but you didn't say he was your friend... But, like I said, you're still a friggin' Einstein compared to him.