How did the universe come into existence?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Now you got it! lol

---

I always believed I'd get there in the end lol

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh, you added more. 

If the atheist says there is no god how is he any different than the person who says there is a god. They have both based their statements on unprovables.

---

Exactly.

Making an atheist a belief statement, not a neutral position. Atheism is a religion. One which has been responsible for countless amounts of violence since Marx militarized the faithful - making it no less 'innocent' nor less prone to fanatacism than any other religion. 

---

Well, there's another claim that needs backing up. I'll counter with this link, which also needs backing up. Links like that won't seed doubt in the faithful, but do keep me curious. I've no interest in winning an argument here, just proving that there is an argument is sufficient for me. I'm an agnostic, and I ask questions.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh, you added more. 

If the atheist says there is no god how is he any different than the person who says there is a god. They have both based their statements on unprovables.

---

Exactly.

Making an atheist a belief statement, not a neutral position. Atheism is a religion. One which has been responsible for countless amounts of violence since Marx militarized the faithful - making it no less 'innocent' nor less prone to fanatacism than any other religion.

 

 

 

---

I don't think atheism is a religion, as it is not organized and there are no set of beliefs. Atheism, as I understand it, means the belief that there is no god.

Fanaticism and violence can be the result of many things, people kill over Nike shoes, that does not make Nike a religion, but Nike does have fanatical followers, so do many other name brands, celebrities, stores, and just about anything else you can imagine. 

People will be violent given the slightest provocation, even more so if they have others to back them up or join them. Neither religion nor atheism are innocent, because the people that believe in them are not innocent, but that is because humans as we understand them are vicious animals and not because of what they choose to or have been forced to believe in.

 

---

Curiously, Nike may well be an unrecognized religion, Charolotte. Apple appears to be!

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Helium Loon wrote:

Is this universe infinite?  Based on current measurements, no.  It has an expanding edge.  What is it expaning out into?  Nothingness? 

But the slowing of the expansion rate

indicates either resistance (which would indicate there IS something beyond that edge, retarding it's expansion) or loss of energy in the closed system of this universe.....but where is it escaping to?

---

 

The expanding universe is not slowing, it is accelerating.   This discovery was announced back in 1998, and is known in the Astronomy/Astrophysicists world.  (maybe not by the general public) 

Just this past year, the 2011 Noble Prize in Physics was awarded for providing evidence, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/10/04/nobel-prize-for-the-accelerating-universe/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15165371

 

There was a MICA (Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics) talk given back on Nov, 26th, 2011, by Dr. Rob Knop, in Second Life, about this very subject. Dr. Knop, was on one of the two teams, working with Dr. Saul Perlmutter.

http://www.mica-vw.org/wiki/index.php/The_Discovery_of_the_Accelerating_Universe

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Phil, I'm in agreement with Anaiya here. You did use the term "creator" and you did imply creator by using the term "creation". A distinction without a difference isn't useful. I also see dismissiveness in such statements as "I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense". I admit it appears like nonsense to me, but so does Congress and nearly everything my teenage neighbor tells me about cars. That said, I think science's search for answers is sincere and I don't dismiss it.

You also said "I find it totally inconceivable that the universe was always there - to infinity in the past." I suppose this explains the doggedness of your position. You're in good company though... Max Planck, the discoverer of quantum physics, found it ultimately inconceivable.

---

hehe. I'm not sure I want to be in the company of Max Planck. Guys like him later came up with the Many Worlds idea which is purely mathematical - and fantasy. Actually it was a student who came up with it, but some of those guys (not Planck because he'd departed by then) latched onto it.

It's true that science's search for answers is sincere and genuine. It's just that some of them search in the realms of fantasy, using mathematics as the tool. They come up with ideas and then do the sums to show that it *could* be true. The leading edges in this science are nothing but mathematics, which I don't find very impressive. String theory, branes, Many Worlds, multiple universes, etc. are all just excercises in mathematics.



I believe I'm right in saying that, when I've mentioned creation in my posts, I've always made it clear that the creator was a someone or something - even merely an event - and never just a someone. Anaiya keeps on using the word "creator" as though it's a someone, and that I assume to be a someone, which I haven't done in these posts. She writes very lenthy posts, mostly about how I assume a creator - a someone - and she simply ignores it every time I tell her that I haven't assumed that. I call that being argumentative for the sake of it.

---

I am not very good at history or math, but didn't ancient scientists or whatever they were called prove or at least theorize that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it actually revolved around the sun? And didn't they use math to come to that realization? Wasn't that considered fantasy at the time?

---

Oh yes Charolotte, the history of heliocentrism is long and interesting. Curiosly, the general public's ignorance of the mathematical abilities of the ancients (which were better than prolly most US high school graduates today) seems to lead many of us to believe they needed extraterrestrial help to make all those fantastic structures they left behind, like Stonehenge, the Great Pyramids, the Nazca Lines and others.

Phil, Einstein's work was purely mathematical, and predicted bizarre things that were not verified for decades. His "cosmological constant" was a hack he used to make the math "pretty". He hated it, but ultimately it was irritating enough to lead to the theory of dark energy. So, I'm happy there are folks who are willing to crawl out on a mathematical limb and wait for experimentalists to prove it's physically there.

Most scientists and mathematicians perceive an aesthetic in the math. The beauty of (relative) mathematical simplicity is thought to reveal "truth". It may well be that String Theory is the result of legions of mathemeticians heeding the siren song of the wrong mathematical beauty (I wouldn't be surprised), but that's the way it goes! The competitive nature of scientific and mathematical endeavors pretty much ensures that, absent experimental evidence to guide them, other "theories of everything" will emerge.

Science is messy!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

There was a MICA (Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics) talk given back on Nov, 26th, 2011, by Dr. Rob Knop, in Second Life, about this very subject. Dr. Knop, was on one of the two teams, working with Dr. Saul Perlmutter.

http://www.mica-vw.org/wiki/index.php/The_Discovery_of_the_Accelerating_Universe

---

I would like to have attended that but I didn't hear about it until it was too late - soon after the event.

I learned about the inflationary expansion not too long after it was discovered - on a tv documentary. If my memory is correct, they were trying a new method of finding supernovas, and they found plenty. In doing it, they accidentally discovered that the universe's expansion is still accelerating, and also that there is a 'fabric' of space. At that time, space was believed be extremely empty.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

There was a MICA (Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics) talk given back on Nov, 26th, 2011, by Dr. Rob Knop, in Second Life, about this very subject. Dr. Knop, was on one of the two teams, working with Dr. Saul Perlmutter.

http://www.mica-vw.org/wiki/index.php/The_Discovery_of_the_Accelerating_Universe

---

I would like to have attended that but I didn't hear about it until it was too late - soon after the event.

I learned about the inflationary expansion not too long after it was discovered - on a tv documentary. If my memory is correct, they were trying a new method of finding supernovas, and they found plenty. In doing it, they accidentally discovered that the universe's expansion is still accelerating, and also that there is a 'fabric' of space. At that time, space was believed be extremely empty.

---

Yep, and this acceleration can only be explained by a fifth force, which unlike the other four, (gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear) grows stronger with distance. I am certain there were a lot of physcists who, upon hearing of this discovery, were reminded of Rabi's famous quote "Who ordered that?"

[Maelstrom Janus]

I thought that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green god arkelseizure....

 

or was it created by a back fire from the engines of space station terminus....

 

theyre as sensible as any religious explanations if not more so...but I wont deface the headstones or blow up, or put fatwahs on anyone who chooses to believe differently.... unlike some I could mention who seem to think their magnificent god warrants death, destruction, maming and torture in his name...

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Phil, Einstein's work was purely mathematical, and predicted bizarre things that were not verified for decades. His "cosmological constant" was a hack he used to make the math "pretty". He hated it, but ultimately it was irritating enough to lead to the theory of dark energy. So, I'm happy there are folks who are willing to crawl out on a mathematical limb and wait for experimentalists to prove it's physically there.

Most scientists and mathematicians perceive an aesthetic in the math. The beauty of (relative) mathematical simplicity is thought to reveal "truth". It may well be that String Theory is the result of legions of mathemeticians heeding the siren song of the wrong mathematical beauty (I wouldn't be surprised), but that's the way it goes! The competitive nature of scientific and mathematical endeavors pretty much ensures that, absent experimental evidence to guide them, other "theories of everything" will emerge.

---

Yes, Madelaine. I'd already posted that they do use mathematics (in a post a little later than the one you quoted), and I explained the difference between then and now. Then, the theories that mathematics appeared to agree with were testable. Now some of the biggest are not - they are just imaginations that mathematics indicate *could* be true.

Einstein didn't arrive at his special theory of relativity from mathematics, but he did use mathematics to show that it can be true. He arrived at relativity (which wasn't new) by thought; i.e. if things don't work with time as constant (absolute time), what happens if time isn't constant. Then the mathematics came in. Of course, that's how new ideas start anyway. The difference is that those ideas could be tested, if not immediately, then in the not distant future. The sort of idea I mentioned in the later post can't be tested, which is what I was getting at when I talked about mathematics.

Einstein invented his Cosmological Constant to make the equations work in view of the fact that the universe is in a steady state (not expanding or contracting), which is what was believed back then. But then expansion was discovered, making it unnecessary and he dropped it, describing it as the biggest mistake of his life. He'd departed this world when something extremely similar to his Cosmological Constant was discovered. I don't think that his Cosmological Constant actually led to the discovery of dark energy. I think it was more a case of discovering something like the Constant and saying that Einstein was right after all, albeit by accident. But I could be mistaken.

One more thing. I didn't mean to imply that the use of mathematics in physics/cosmology is bad these days. It isn't. I only intended to say that some of the main theories that are around, such as string theory with its many dimensions, branes and many worlds with their multi-universes, etc. belong in the realms of fantasy. Mathematics are used to show that they *could* be true, but they can't be tested and can only remain fantasies. Things pertaining to this universe, such as the Higgs bosun, which could turn out to exist and actually be the 'fabric of space', can be tested - if not now, then in the not too distant future. The Large Hydron Collider (is that correct?) was built to try and find it. I'm not down on mathematics is physics/cosmology. I'm only down on some of the wild ideas that just mathematics produces. The people behind them aren't dealing with physics and cosmology, in spite of what they call themselves. They are just mathematicians whio have chosen to aim their mathematics at aspects of cosmology, imo.

String theory may be testable in the not too distant future. It does belong to this universe after all, and it did begin life as an idea of how the strong nuclear force physically works. It's just that all the necessary extra dimensions give a huge impression of mathematics-based fantasy.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Yep, and this acceleration can only be explained by a fifth force, which unlike the other four, (gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear) grows stronger with distance.

I am certain there were a lot of physcists who, upon hearing of this discovery, were reminded of Rabi's famous quote "

Who ordered that?

"

---

I've just read the top part of that article and I believe you must be right

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Phil, Einstein's work was purely mathematical, and predicted bizarre things that were not verified for decades. His "cosmological constant" was a hack he used to make the math "pretty". He hated it, but ultimately it was irritating enough to lead to the theory of dark energy. So, I'm happy there are folks who are willing to crawl out on a mathematical limb and wait for experimentalists to prove it's physically there.

Most scientists and mathematicians perceive an aesthetic in the math. The beauty of (relative) mathematical simplicity is thought to reveal "truth". It may well be that String Theory is the result of legions of mathemeticians heeding the siren song of the wrong mathematical beauty (I wouldn't be surprised), but that's the way it goes! The competitive nature of scientific and mathematical endeavors pretty much ensures that, absent experimental evidence to guide them, other "theories of everything" will emerge.

---

Yes, Madelaine. I'd already posted that they do use mathematics (in a post a little later than the one you quoted), and I explained the difference between then and now. Then, the theories that mathematics appeared to agree with were testable. Now they are not - they are just imaginations.

Einstein didn't arrive at his special theory of relativity from mathematics, but he did use mathematics to show that it can be true. He arrived at relativity (which wasn't new) by thought; i.e. if things don't work with time as constant (absolute time), what happens if time isn't constant. Then the mathematics came in. Of course, that's how new ideas start anyway. The difference is that those ideas could be tested, if not immediately, then in the not distant future. The sort of idea I mentioned in the later post can't be tested, which is what I was getting at when I talked about mathematics.

Einstein invented his Cosmological Constant to make the equations work in view of the fact that the universe is in a steady state (not expanding or contracting), which is what was believed back then. But then expansion was discovered, making it unnecessary and he dropped it, describing it as the biggest mistake of his life. He'd departed this world when something extremely similar to his Cosmological Constant was discovered. I don't think that his Cosmological Constant actually led to the discovery of dark energy. I think it was more a case of discovering something like the Constant and saying that Einstein was right after all, albeit by accident. But I could be mistaken.

One more thing. I didn't mean to imply that the use of mathematics in physics/cosmology is bad these days. It isn't. I only intended to say that some of the main theories that are around, such as string theory with its many dimensions, branes and many worlds with their multi-universes, etc. belong in the realms of fantasy. Mathematics are used to show that they *could* be true, but they can't be tested and can only remain fantasies. Things pertaining to this universe, such as the Higgs bosun, which could turn out to exist and actually be the 'fabric of space', can be tested - if not now, then in the not too distant future. The Large Hydron Collider (is that correct?) was built to try and find it. I'm not down on mathematics is physics/cosmology. I'm only down on some of the wild ideas that just mathematics produces. The people behind them aren't dealing with physics and cosmology, in spite of what they call themselves. They are mathematicians, and that's all they deal with, imo.

String theory may be testable in the not too distant future. It does belong to this universe after all, and it did begin life as an idea of how the strong nuclear force physically works. It's just all the necessary extra dimesnions that give a huge imprtession of mathematics-based fantasy.

---

The cosmological constant didn't lead directly to dark energy, but it was that niggling hack that kept folks on the lookout.

LHC (Large Hadron Collider ;-) experiments have already excluded some predicted mass ranges for the Higgs boson and they have some hints of it at around 125GeV.

I think I did mention somewhere else that I wonder about the value theories which declare themselves unprovable, but it wouldn't be the first time mankind did something apparently pointless in hopes someone would find a point eventually. There is a bit of a backlash brewing for string and multiverse theory, with the claim being that the politics of academia has promoted comformity.

On this topic I remain... agnostic ;-)

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

LHC (Large Hadron Collider ;-) experiments have already excluded some predicted mass ranges for the Higgs boson and they have some hints of it at around 125GeV.

I think I did mention somewhere else that I wonder about the value theories which declare themselves unprovable, but

it wouldn't be the first time mankind did something apparently pointless in hopes someone would find a point eventually.

There is a bit of a backlash brewing for string and multiverse theory, with the claim being that the politics of academia has promoted comformity.

On this topic I remain... agnostic ;-)

---

I was nearly right with "Hydron"

The laser, for instance. After it was invented it was an answer looking for a question. After a while, it became the answer for everything. Well, not everything but a hell of a lot of things.

[Maelstrom Janus]

Here's my latest puzzling problem over the creation of the universe  and its do the barenaked ladies suggest the universe stated to cool a mere 14 Million years ago....Im sure they say million and not billion....

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Here's my latest puzzling problem over the creation of the universe  and its do the barenaked ladies suggest the universe stated to cool a mere 14 Million years ago....Im sure they say million and not billion....

---

I can tell you, from personal experience, that I think more clearly with my clothes on.

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

On this topic I remain... agnostic ;-)

---

 

/me observes Maddy suspiciously.

You know.. for an agnostic you know an awful lot ... :robotindifferent:

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

 

---

A new born baby is an atheist.

 

---

No.

A newborn is at best agnostic - find me one newborn that will speak out as it pops out and state that there is no divine. They have, at best, no opinoin; making them agnostic. An atheist declares a stance - opposition to the divine.

More likely, if the newborn could elaborate, it would see the divine in its mother or itself or the bond therein - given how behavoir shapes up at that age.

But it would certainly not have the elaborate position of denying any divine concept and insiting there is no life, only chemical reactions.

 

---

No.

Agnostics have beliefs about unknowability.  For instance that there is a diety or greater force but that it is unknowable.  Or that whether or not there is a greater being is unknowable and that if there is one its nature would be unknowable.  Those are theistic beliefs. 

From a strictly linguistic point of view, prefacing a word with "a" signifies absence (not to be confused for prefacing a word with "anti"), so a strict atheist has no theistic beliefs.  Few adults qualify as most at least will have heard of one theistic belief they disbelieve so it might make pragmatic sense to include those adults that do not have a postive theistic belief, and hold some theistic disbeliefs.  People who are certain there is no god or deity would probably be better described as antitheistic.

Agnosticism as a word arose  as a describer of a very religious school of thought with very definate beliefs about the existence of a greater being or force that has the specific trait of being unknowable to humans.  They had religious rites and practices, so it's really not an apt word for describing people who do not believe in deities or gods and do not practice religious rites.

Evidently you seem to misunderstand the word religion which does not refer to any old belief generally, otherwise we'd call your belief that your mother is your mother, a religion.  It's also not just for beliefs we don't have proof of but which pertain to the supernatural, otherwise we'd have to call a young child's belief in the tooth fairy a religion and that's just silly.  It takes more than a single belief to call something a religion.  Believing Santa is real is not a religion, believing that the Greek pantheon of gods is not real, is not a religion.  Why you'd want such trivial things as a single belief that something or other does not exist  to be a religion I don't know.  Do you undervalue religion so strongly?

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

You are assuming nothing comes from nothing because that is your observation within this universe

. 

But it is baseless to assume that if nothing comes from nothing within the limitations of this universe, that this same thing must be true externally to our universe

.

  That nothing comes from nothing may have only become a fact at time T where time T is the   exact moment the universe became extant.  And further it may be the case that nothing comes from nothing applies nowhere but within our universe.but where is the evidence for that?

---

That's correct - because this thread is about the universe - read the title. It is "

How did the universe come into existence?

" See it now? It doesn't say "How did the universes come into existance?", does it? How many times do I have to point that out before you finally catch on? So, at the risk of getting too boring, I'll say it again - nothing comes from nothing, without it being created by a someone or something.



We can't talk about what is external to this universe, except in pure fantasy or mathematical terms, so it's pointless even mentioning it (and the mathematics way is pure imagination). In all probility there is no "external" to the universe other than nothingness/Null.

One more thing. How many times do I have to say that I have

not

assumed a creator in any of my posts before you understand what it means and stop writing that I have that assumption? To put it another way, how long do you intend barking up the wrong tree? Or do you think that, if you repeat something enough times, it will magically become true? There is no magic, I'm afraid lol

The rest of your lengthy post is meaningless, so I'll leave it there.

---

Yes the thread is about how the universe came to be, not about the limitations that exist within it.  I cannot turn the tempature on a baked cake up to 180 degrees celius by turning a knob on the cake, but not discussing such a temperature adjustment makes it very difficult to describe how to bake the cake, or how a cake came to be.

You're not even making sense.  According to you the title is both how did the universe come into existence and not how did the universe come into existence.  I don't know how many times you have to point out that the thread of the title is both how did the universe come into existence and not how did the universe come into existence.  I don't think I'll believe that no matter how many times you repeat such nonsense. 

The title of the thread is in fact how did the universe come into existence and nothing whatsoever evidences that it necessarily came into existence through processes that are possible within it.

Your comment about me catching on is just more rudeness and disrespect on your part. Why do you feel a need to do that?

If we cannot talk or speculate about what might have existed before the universe or external to it then we simply cannot discuss the answer to this question, anymore than we describe how a cake came into being without describing processes that are outside the limitations of the baked cake. 

It does not matter how many times you now claim you have not assumed a creator because the post history is all still there.  Since I've gotten bored of your other quote in which I bolded the word creator for you and since the fact that you did in fact cite a creator is not enough evidence for you that you did in fact cite a creator, perhaps the following quote where you describe this creator of yours as intelligent will put an end to these utterly false and dishonest denials on your part:

"The only conclusion that can be drawn is that something created existance (space, matter and time) - your intelligent designer. So, to answer your question, an intelligent designer created the universe."

So, there is it, right from the horses (your) mouth (or post). 

You not only cited a creator but you specifically described it as intelligent.  First post, page 6, your words. 

Nothing you can say can convince me that you did not posit a creator and in fact now I've investigated further, a creator with intelligence.  No matter how many times you say it.  I can read after all.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

On this topic I remain... agnostic ;-)

---

 

/me observes Maddy suspiciously.

You know.. for an agnostic you

appear to

 know an awful lot ... :robotindifferent:

---

FIFY! ;-)

I like healthy skepticism, Rob (may I call you Rob?)

 

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Now you are claiming you are not assuming or suggesting a creator.  The following is a quote from your earlier post.  Note the word in bold.

The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that

creator

existed?

You posited not merely "something" existing, but specifically described it as a creator.

---

Sorry. There was a snippet in your lengthy post that merited a response.

The bit of mine that you quoted doesn't suggest that I "assume a creator". It asks a question AND the word "creator" that I used (that you bolded) specifically refers to the "something" that I mentioned in the previous sentence. So, although the word "creator" is usually used to mean an intelligent creator, such as God, in the case you quoted, it specifically, and obviously, means a "something" - non-intelligent.

As I said earlier, you are just arguing for the sake of it, and not even trying to discuss or debate the actual topic. So from now, I will ignore your posts, as they are wholly argumentative and contain nothing in the way of genuine discussion on the topic. Ok?

---

The question assumes a creator, just as the question "when did you stop beating your wife" assumes beating of a wife has occured.  Why is it that when you use the word creator it does not mean creator but it does when I do?

But if that's not enough evidence for you, see the latest quote I dug out.  Allow me to reiterate it for your benefit:

"So, to answer your question, an intelligent designer created the universe."

So your creator is also intelligent and designs.

It's good you started your post with the word sorry.   I think you certainly owe me an apology after your rude and disrespectful behaviour.  Who are you to completely contradict yourself then accuse me of just being argumentative?  What a nerve.  And now you are doing it again.  Frankly, I think you are just too immature to have this kind of discussion civilly.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Hey, I don't think she is arguing with you, just pointing out how what you said does imply you are saying creator.

Take number 1 from your reply above, "

 I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not [say] the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it."

So if the universe had to be created by someone or something, wouldn't that mean that that something or someone would be referred to as a creator?

---

I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent one, such as God, and she keeps on saying that I assume that to be the case. I don't. She really is just being argumentative for the sake of it - and getting nowhere.

---

Who are you to tell me what I am thinking?  It is me not you who knows what I am thinking.  I find your conduct outrageous.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---



I believe I'm right in saying that, when I've mentioned creation in my posts, I've always made it clear that the creator was a someone or something - even merely an event - and never just a someone. Anaiya keeps on using the word "creator" as though it's a someone, and that I assume to be a someone, which I haven't done in these posts. She writes very lenthy posts, mostly about how I assume a creator - a someone - and she simply ignores it every time I tell her that I haven't assumed that. I call that being argumentative for the sake of it.

---

I believe you are not right about that.

Here's a quote of your's I prepared earlier:

"The only conclusion that can be drawn is that something created existance (space, matter and time) - your intelligent designer. So, to answer your question, an intelligent designer created the universe."

[Phil Deakins]

Anaiya. Please stop ranting at me. You are the one who keeps saying that I "assume a creator", and now you've added that I use the title of the thread in two opposite ways. They are both wrong and it's just ranting. I noticed that you started on someone else now too.

I haven't been rude to you, unless you consider me not replying to the bulk of your posts as rude. I'm sorry that you've been getting it wrong, but I can't help that. I've done my best to tell you how you've been getting it wrong, and I can do no more. So don't you think it would be better if you joined in the actual discussion instead of going off at people?

The bit of my first post that you quoted is what I would call clutching at straws. In the first sentence, I stated "something", followed by "your intelligent creator" - that was written to Porky, who suggested an intelligent creator. The second sentence was merely winding up the first. The whole thing together did not indicate that I "assume a creator". Whether I do or not hasn't been indicated in this thread. It may get indicated later, but it hasn't been indicated yet.

So please take a step back, forget about putting assumptions and words into my mouth, and simply add to the discussion if you have anything to say. All this "you said" and "you assume" stuff has nothing to do with the discussion, and it's distracting for everyone who is actually taking part in the discussion. You don't have to keep insisting that what you understood about what I wrote must be true because it's what you'd understood. Just forget it.

ETA: I can understand how you first arrived at what you think is my assumption, but when I tell you it isn't, the thing to do is simply treat what you thought as a misunderstanding, even an understandable misunderstanding, and carry on from there. Keeping on insisting that I have an assumption when I keep saying I haven't is a bit silly, don't you think? You said that only you know what you think. Don't you think that only I know what assumptions I have?

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Here's my latest puzzling problem over the creation of the universe  and its do the barenaked ladies suggest the universe stated to cool a mere 14 Million years ago....Im sure they say million and not billion....

---

Oh cool! I didnt know it was them that sang that show's theme song, The Big Bang Theory is cute. They say billion.

0:09

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Here's my latest puzzling problem over the creation of the universe  and its do the barenaked ladies suggest the universe stated to cool a mere 14 Million years ago....Im sure they say million and not billion....

---

Oh cool! I didnt know it was them that sang that show's theme song, The Big Bang Theory is cute. They say billion.

0:09

---

C, close your eyes and listen again.

;-)

ETA: Seeing the word on the screen alters your perception of what you heard. There is a marvelous video demonstration of this at San Francisco's Exploratorium, where a fellow faces the camera and utters the phrase "la, la, la, la, la", followed by "ba, ba, ba, ba, ba". If you look at the actors face, that's exactly what you hear. If you close your eyes and play it again, you hear "la, la, la, la, la" both times.

We are easily fooled.

[Phil Deakins]

The world is carried through space on the backs of 4 giant elephants that are themselves standing on the back of a super-giant turtle. The turtle, and many others like it, is headed for a particular point in space. When they get there, they get together to produce the next generation of super-giant turtles that will carry more worlds on their backs. That's the Big Bang theory, isn't it?