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.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: An agnostic, as noted below my post; simple has no answer and does not ask the question. As an agnostic who asks the question, I submit myself as proof this claim is false. ;-)

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.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov. With all due respect, as I realize you believe in Jah and are I believe Rastafarian or something similar in your faith, it takes absolutely no effort whatsoever to hold an atheist point of view. Faith is the belief in something. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That is much easier and in fact effortless when compared to trying to justify that a loving god allows babies to suffer, for example. I just say that as an example in how not believing in something, especially an Omnipotent All Loving Lord and Savior, is much less effortless and actually requires no faith whatsoever. It is not meant as an attack against your faith or beliefs, or anyone else's, and I have much respect for all faiths, or at least those who believe in them, because no matter what, we are all here, together, and I would rather keep civil dialog open rather than hateful religion bashing. That would include being open to the beliefs, or lack thereof, of the non believers. I am, I suppose, agnostic. Some athiests are as dogmatic as the most religious. Some great minds have adopted Spinoza's god. I guess I just don't feel the need to say "I know". It's not that I don't care, I simply don't know. And the cool thing about not knowing things is that it always gives me something to do when I wake up. I am a big fan of awe and I find a lot more of it when I question faith and start digging.

ROB34466IIIa wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I'm thinking about the whole enchilada. Apparantly you have an appetite for Mexican cuisine too. Sorry btw .. I added a few words to my original reply while you answered. I hope you take those words into consideration too. I do! Yeah, I see Phil is narrowing the discussion to our particular observable universe and potentially to a limited epoch from the big bang through to the big crunch (if that happens). Beyond the pleasure of the aesthestics, I'm not sure what value there is in theorizing about things the self same theories say are unproveable, but plenty of people are doing it and they're getting me to buy their books (which means I have just shown the value in it ;-) So, for me, the question may boil down to whether the string theorists, and in particular the multiverse theorists, can craft theories beautiful enough to sway the masses, or whether new theories will spring up, even more bizarre, or whether the experimentalists will discover something that shows everything we know is wrong. As an engineer, who likes to get her hands dirty, I'm rooting for the experimentalists.

ROB34466IIIa wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: That's right, except for one thing - the universe can't always have been there. If you think it could have been, how come it was *always* there? How come it exists? Why can't the Universe always have been there? Why can't it have sprung from nothing? When you say "how come it exists" when facing something that always existed, I'm not sure you can expect an answer. As Helig pointed out before there' s the theory of a singularity, derived from the theory of relativity. One hypothesis is the bang has begun as a singularity. There could be a chance our singularity derived from a black hole from another universe. We do know that our known universe is time bound ( 15 billion years since the bang ). It may be infinitely large, but it is certainly not infinitely old. Scientifically there' s even no agreement wether this universe will forever expand ( which it is doing now ) or at one point in time will collapse into that singularity again. So far for the ' first cause' . If our universe derived from a black hole in another universe, then it would not be THE universe and the "it's always existed" idea remains. I'm not thinking about only the universe we can perceive. I'm thinking about the whole enchilada.

Phil Deakins wrote: That's right, except for one thing - the universe can't always have been there. If you think it could have been, how come it was *always* there? How come it exists? Why can't the Universe always have been there? Why can't it have sprung from nothing? When you say "how come it exists" when facing something that always existed, I'm not sure you can expect an answer. "Why" questions are hard enough already. That particular "why" question usually seems (to me) to be an attempt to bring intent into the conversation. This is a bit of a wander, but Feynman here starts to expose the difficulty of "why" questions, even when intent isn't part of the mix...

Ceka Cianci wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Whoa whoa whoa, I think your nephew is sweet and all, but I thinks he has his facts confused he was pretty little when i asked him that.. he knows better now hehehehehe Also speaking of nature and it's wrath..is anyone else surrounded by tornado conditions tonight? we were lastnight and tonight we are again..my family just called from the ranch and they were all in the cellar out there..i gues a couple came through.. they have been all over the place since yesterday and don't look like they are letting up.. I'm enjoying thundersnow at the moment, but no tornadoes. I hope you and yours stay safe and sound, Ceka.

Ceka Cianci wrote: now they just fly up there cause it's fun.. Is there a better reason?

Cali Souther wrote: I always agree with Maddy! That makes one of us!

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: I don't see how the only conclusion can be that something must have created it. It can be one conclusion, but not the only one. Consider nothing at all - no 'anywhere' and no 'when' - no space, no matter, and no time for anything to exist in - absolute nothingness. Then something exists. How come? How did something come into existance? I can see no other conclusion but that existance itself, as we understand it (space, time, matter), was created by something/one. I can see that there might be, or have been, some other form of existance that we don't know about, that brought about the universe we do know about, but, to us, existance itself (the universe) is matter, space for the matter to be in, and time for the matter and space to exist in. That's the universe, which is all we know about, and that *had* to come about by something happening; i.e. something or some entity doing something that brought it about when there was absolutely no existance/universe at all. Something had to have happened, and something (or someone), in some form of existance, had to have caused it. In your scenario, absolute nothingness then something exists, how can the only conclusion be that someone created existence? I agree something had to have happened by something happening, I just don't see how it had to have been brought about by a someone. Besides, it is much more humane to not believe that a someone created what we perceive as reality, because if that were true, the creator is sadistically insane. Wouldn't it also be possible that this creator was, in a sense, incompetent? By that I mean able to concoct a set of rules by which everything could could evolve, but unable to comprehend the complexity of the result? If we're gonna make up theories, I like that one as I could at least identify with the poor thing.

Porky Gorky wrote: Oh I forgot to ridicule that TV show Ancient Aliens, has anyone seen that? Those guys are desperately clutching at straws more and more in every episode. In their eyes Humans have achieved nothing and Aliens are pretty much responsible for every achievement Mankind has made in history, And it has become more ludicrous the longer the show stays on the air as they have to invent more content. Good entertainment but utter nonsense IMO. I've never owned a TV, so haven't been accosted by such silliness there. I posted this elsewhere recently, but it's applicable here too.. ETA: I like Lisa Randall's take on "absolute truth" near the end of this...

Porky Gorky wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: 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. ALthough that is my current belief, I don't believe it 100%. Not completely convinced. We are trapped in a bubble and until we can escape that bubble and look at it from the outside, put it into context, I don't think we'll ever be sure. Phil, the idea that one MUST conclude an intelligent designer is simply dogma, isn't it? I understand the allure of that conclusion, but like Porky, I'm willing to express uncertainty over it, and accept the possibility we may never know. What I do believe is that our ability and desire to believe in creators, particularly benevolent ones with lovely hereafters, is most likely the result of natural selection. It's easier to slog through a difficult life if there's a virgin, comfy furniture and fresh fruit waiting for you in the afterlife. Singing about that while you wait helps too.

Helium Loon wrote: A lot of stuff!! I agree! I like to wonder whether there might be a universe in which the physical laws provide for the provabiility, within that universe, of a creator of that universe. ;-)

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Porky Gorky wrote: LOL thanks Tatiana :matte-motes-wink: I think nearly every universe origin theory falls apart if you look at it too hard. If you believe in intelligent design or a God or deity then you need to answer the question how did they come into existence in order to create the universe in the first place as Charlotte said. If you believe that the universe was not designed on purpose but merely happened then that needs to be explained too as things don't just appear from nowhere without a source according to what we know about the laws of physics. And the likelihood is we will never know as a species. I think logic, reason, and history will show us that just because we cannot explain it as of yet, only means that is because of us not having discovered a way to explain it yet. If the universe and reality were designed with purpose, there has to be a designer of that designer ad nauseum. It makes much more sense to accept that there was no design and that the reason we see such patterns and amazing things that work so well is because all the crap that didn't work didn't survive for us to examine it. Well, actually, several things have survived but are being phased out. Agreed, given an infinite number of possibilities (which the multiverse theory posits) it's not hard to imagine that complete randomness could create what appears to be exquisite planning. I think it is, and may always be, premature to say that, if we can't explain it, it must be a grander plan. For me, it's sufficient to say "we can't explain it" and get back to work.

Hippie Bowman wrote: Good morning all! Happy Hump day! Enjoy some wake up music! Peace! Good morning, Kids!!!! Here's some more "Riders in the Sky" music, with a little help from the big kids at Pixar... And another perspective...

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: You don't like me nekkid? A little, but don't call me nekkid. Surely you don't mean that.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Madeleine Masters? I used phosphate containing detergent I hoarded before it was banned. My dishwashing on the lawn also counts as fertilizing it. So there, you young whipper-snapper! Apparently I am only allowed so many M's a day, you can thank the Mar's corporation for that. Well, if you are going to use that defense, I suppose next you are going to claim that burying your dirty laundry in the back yard just so we are forced to buy you new clothes counts as composting, huh? You don't like me nekkid?

Lia Abbot wrote: So if I'm so dirty how come you don't use your detergent on me? I'll stand on your lawn. Just wait whilst i go and get my wellies. Lia, if I scrub 'till you're clean, there will be nothing left but the wellies. Let me know when you're ready.

UncommonTruth wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: UncommonTruth wrote: Was great to see you all, loved tryin to keep up with all the new pictures being posted here. After I left your shoot, I went home, turned off the lights, and nervously waited for Maddy to notice her shoes were missing :smileyvery-happy: I noticed, now it's your turn to detect what's missing. Damn my horrible attention to details! :matte-motes-sour: All kidding aside, was great to see you there, you are definitely the best looking Oscar I've ever seen. (and I do so love the oscar shoes (yes, the connection is just now dawning on me) thank you :smileyvery-happy::matte-motes-kiss:) Thank you, Uncommon, it was great to see you there as well, even if you did pinch my slippers. After hearing that Perez Hilton got 70,000 signatures on a petition to have the Muppets perform during the Oscars, I just had to do my part.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madeleine Masters wrote: I hate to burst your bubble here Charolotte, but Lila really is a miserable old bat, and a dirty one too. That makes her excellent company. 1. I happen to know that you actually do enjoy bursting bubbles (ask Snugs about dishwashing time) and 2. When you say someone is a miserable old dirty bat, it somehow comes out as a compliment p.s. throwing all the china into the yard at sprinkler hour and dumping tide all over them does not count as washing the dishes, nice try though. Madeleine Masters? I used phosphate containing detergent I hoarded before it was banned. My dishwashing on the lawn also counts as fertilizing it. So there, you young whipper-snapper!

Raven1 Short wrote: UncommonTruth wrote: Raven1 Short wrote: Groups shot I'm sorry Kylie but you seemed to have lost your skirt but you look so triumphant with your statue I had to add it. LOL What a perfect description! Kylie you do look triumphant! I know when I'm feeling that way the first thing I do is rip off my clothes, so how fitting! :smileylol: Oh and Maddie was under Val's skirt at that time checking out her Hello Kitty underwear. Yes I was. And I could tell Val was excited, she was wearing her "Thursday" knickers on Sunday!

valerie Inshan wrote: Thanks Charo! Lol, you were here and you even didn't know it! :smileyvery-happy: Just wait till Maddy comes with her high res pictures as she does so well! :smileywink: I can't improve on your work Val. You've done a wonderful job from start (the idea) to finish(the photo). You own this one, thanks for doing it.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Lia Abbot wrote: Sorry Charlotte. I'm a miserable old bat. I like Ben Stiller a lot Oh, I highly doubt you are! You have nothing to apologize for :heart: I hate to burst your bubble here Charolotte, but Lia really is a miserable old bat, and a dirty one too. That makes her excellent company.

UncommonTruth wrote: Was great to see you all, loved tryin to keep up with all the new pictures being posted here. After I left your shoot, I went home, turned off the lights, and nervously waited for Maddy to notice her shoes were missing :smileyvery-happy: I noticed, now it's your turn to detect what's missing.