Philosophy isn't a class.
Heaven & Hell (Open to Everyone)
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
Philosophy isn't a class.
Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.
You are hallucinating again. Again, you show your hatred for electricians (for some reason).
Philosophy classes aren't theology classes.
Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
What does that have to do with the discussion of the Bible? This is a THEOLOGY discussion...not a Popularity Contest. Why can't you have a philosophical/theological discussion without getting so bent whenever someone so much as questions the Bible?
Last edited:
You weren't attempting humor. So now you take your statement back?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
At least Cypress tries to cover his stupidity with fake intellectual bullshit. You don't even try.
Theology is not philosophy. Redefinition fallacy.
It could be argued that churches ARE popularity contests.
Inversion fallacy.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
You can't even get your fallacies right. Learn what a true inversion fallacy is.
Because of the overwhelming faith required to follow atheism.
That is agnosticism.
Atheism is the absolute faith that there is nothing other than the natural universe and cannot be anything beyond it.
Agnosticism is reasonable - based on reason. Atheism is dogmatic, the mirror image of theism.
Of course it is. One of the most dogmatic of all religions and intolerant of competing faiths.
As is atheism.
I've know several people who graduated from Devry, all of them well educated.
For IT people, it was one of the better educational programs I've seen. My undergrad is Computer Information Systems from Cal Poly Pomona. DeVry probably spent more hours on absolute technology than we did. I mean, i guess it's not an BA in English .. I recall you look down your nose at any degree that has a practical application.
But what you claim simply isn't true.
{The following are the percentages of Christians, Evangelical Protestants, Mainline Protestants, Historically Black Protestants, and Catholics in the United States1:
- Christian: 70.6%
- Evangelical Protestant: 25.4%
- Mainline Protestant: 14.7%
- Historically Black Protestant: 6.5%
- Catholic: 20.8%
Protestants are over double the number of Catholics.
PRRI
Your wiki link is all but made up - as it provides no actual data.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
lol. wrong
Asked answered! It's not a Debate.
As usual, you sidestepped.
Still obsessed with sucking cock. You have perverted issues. You should seek out Diesel, he's your type
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Still obsessed with sucking cock. You have perverted issues. You should seek out Diesel, he's your type
Doc one day spent an entire afternoon just posting "cocksucker" at me on the forum. It was surreal.
He's obsessed with sucking cock. Too bad no man will let him suck their cock. One of those French Poodles just might...
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Pick one. Pick any science theory and let's see how speculation of an expanding universe that began from a singularity is somehow inconsistent with that theory.
Correct. It doesn't need to be science to be consistent with science.
Example. I tell you that I arrived at the park by driving my combustion engine vehicle along a particular route that took a certain amount of time. You agree that this is consistent with science. The next day I tell you that I arrived at the park by instantly teleporting half way to my magic carpet, which I piloted the rest of the rest of the way to the park. You begin to have doubts about today's account being consistent with physics.
Once upon a time, there were actual problems with the Big Bang being consistent with physics. Then Stephen Hawking fundamentally altered physics to account for the expanding universe we observe. If you haven't read his thesis, I recommend it. The "Big Bang" as a name/label, kind of fell out of use in deference to Hawking's "singularity." The model came about by the observation that the (observable) universe is expanding. If you go backward in time, the universe is contracting. The singularity is simply the theoretical limit. If you don't have a problem with the concept of absolute zero, or a perfect black body, even though you know they don't exist in nature, then you shouldn't have a problem with the theoretical point/limit whereby the universe began its expansion by simply tracing the expansion backwards. It's just a model. Many people have argued their own personal speculations about what happened at the "singularity" or thereabouts, and it's all irrelevant because nothing changes the model itself.
Correct. Hawking's singularity is not infinite energy. If you don't like the idea of it being a dimensionless point, make the singularity whatever you want it to be. It's irrelevant. The only question that matters is "do you agree that the observable universe is expanding?" ... without making any claims as to the nature of any unobservable universe. If so, if you were to go back in time far enough, what is the logical conclusion?
Correct, but we have to address your personal semantics of the word "universe". Maybe there are many of these expanding universes. You want to say "if there are many, they aren't uni-verses" ... leaving me to respond "So that's why there is only one uniform, because if there were many uniforms, they wouldn't be uni-forms" ... or "Now I see why there is only one unit of measure. If there were many, they wouldn't be units of measure."
So let's create a term for the moment and refer to the "expandiverse". There is no limit of only one expandiverse.
This is an understatement. We can see a mere flake of a mere speck of a mere particle of this expandiverse, and that's overstating our visibility.
Agreed. Hawking created a model for an expanding universe, which I am calling an expandiverse to eliminate confusion over the semantics of prefixes.
The Big Bang no longer means what it meant. Hawking changed that. The term is now "singularity" and merely represents the theoretical limit of the point of origin of the expansion of the expandiverse.