Gene Frenkle

Tom mostly thinks we're all a bunch of idiots and says so constantly. I guess it's ok to disparage your intelligence, but not your belief system? Argue the points, stay out of the conversation or simply get over yourself already. In case you haven't noticed, not much is sacred here and it's a much more interesting board because of that. Pretty sure I never said either of those things.

Incidentally, Tom, I'd like to thank you for helping me find my faith, especially at this special time of year. It's a Christmas Miracle!

I can see you are struggling with your faith - feel free to take it out on me. I'd rather think of myself as agnostic, but you can call me whatever you like. Science and rational thought are a lack of faith and a requirement of proof, if anything, but again you are free to think what you like. If I'm passionate about these things, well that's just how god made me. I put a high value on empirical evidence and do not like to get fleeced. Santa's coming...Merry Christmas! Ho Ho Ho! In all seriousness, I hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas. I understand the argument, and if I have faith, it is in empiricism. What about you?

Unlike every religion ever, I make no claims which require faith. In fact, I make no claims at all. I am only interested in what is observable, testable and provable (or at the very least mathematically possible).

First, the premise is flawed, nobody said it came out of nothing, just that we can't understand it or where it "came from" (whatever that means). Second, I'm not making any statement about where the singularity "came from", so there's really nothing to have faith in. I simply accept that it is unknowable an choose to concern myself with things which are knowable. Third, your God of the Gaps argument here is a classic logical fallacy. Lack of scientific explanation does not in any way prove, imply or suggest that "god did it".

Take WHAT on faith? The Matrix completely ripped this off, but did a very nice job of it IMO.

I wish you a Joyous Festivus if it makes you feel better then!

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. --Aristotle

Thanks for clearing that up.

I've come to respect the fact that science or the universe or whatever doesn't always make sense to "us" and isn't always intuitive. I see this as a failing of the human mind more than anything. You can't always rely on common sense, only observable evidence. Maybe you're just a Brain in a Vat, there's no way to know. The best we can probably do is to try to explain what we can observe, impartially and systematically. Perhaps that will lead to some clue about the "bigger" questions.

It isn't very satisfying, there's just likely no way to ever know.

Ah, so Rush tells you that you agree with him 99.8% of the time. Got it.

Why, because the message board filter didn't catch "bitches"?

No offense, but what's the point of being involved in this discussion then?

I'm the party-line lemming who agrees with the media mouthpiece of "my" party 99.8% of the time??? Are you listening to yourself? Like I said, I find Rush's blubbering Oxycontin-fueled rants entertaining, so yes, I've actually listened to him.

The Big Bang Theory says that there was a singularity, a single point containing all matter in the universe. The point eventually expanded into what we see today. The universe did not expand "into" anything (no vacuum). Think of it like a balloon being blown up. You are a two-dimensional point on the surface of that balloon. The surface of the balloon is expanding, stretching and it appears to you that every other point is expanding away from you. What is that two-dimensional surface expanding into? The three-dimensional concept is often explained using a raisin loaf of bread expanding while being baked. Each raisin in the loaf is moving away from every other raisin in the loaf - the space between them is expanding, much like galaxies I guess. Maybe I'm not explaining that very well, which is not surprising because of it's mind-bending nature, so I'll link to another podcast I listen to (Astronomy Cast) which answers the question: What is the Universe Expanding Into... http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-28-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ As far as what happened before time started, it's not likely knowable and I'm not even sure what the question means.

No need for celebs when you have Fox News and MSNBC, and yes it IS boring.

Unfortunately this is not a fiscal issue, so your belief in time as circular with no beginning (and supposedly no end) is kind of irrelevant, no? That is, unless you have some math to back it up I guess. Given your background, you are probably better at math than me. It's always so strange to me what these "religious" topics Evolve into (pun intended).

The only thing that amazes me is that you "claim" to only agree with 99.8% of what Rush thinks. Did you run some statistical analysis to come up with your extraordinary .2% disagreement rate?

Merry Christmas Bitches!

Are you seriously asking me what happened before time began? What does that even mean? Ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Blubbering Oxycontin-fueled rants are nothing if not entertaining!

It doesn't matter what you believe. Time started with the Big Bang.

Ricky says that god created stem cells. Prove he didn't!

I always enjoy your responses and think you should post here more often. I've thought a lot about the question of free will, and I don't think there is a good way to definitively prove or disprove predetermination either way. In the case where god exists, if god is omniscient and omnipotent, how can we possibly have free will? It seems to me that time is simply a variable and moving backward in time means returning the universe to the exact state it was at that time. Conversely, it seems to me that moving forward in time means advancing the universe to the exact state that it "will be" at that time. In other words, were it possible to travel backward and forward in time at will, then time is continuous and the state of the universe is predetermined at any point in time. If that's the case, there is no case for free will, just our perception of free will. It probably can't be answered either way, but I don't think you need god to have predetermination, just cause and effect. Here's an experiment that I find fascinating - I think I've linked to it before. It's from an episode of Radio Lab on NPR - the entire series of podcasts is amazing. There's also a nice explanation of Relativity (in the beginning of the episode) as a bonus: (the explanation of the experiment starts at the 15:00 mark) http://www.radiolab....no-special-now/ Infinite what - time? I don't think anyone's claiming that time doesn't have a beginning. A desperate cry for validation in the wake of numerous ID and Creationism beat-downs in courts of law.