So, let me do a bit of interpreting. You admit this guy is wrong as can be.
Divides by zero and does not realize it is nonsense.
Also, note that this guy correctly (I think) describes nothing as nothing; no space, no mass, no light, no time etc, but then “…a small fluctuation occurs..” and presto, everything comes from “nothing” as a “small fluctuation” creates everything. More Magic Larry nonsense.
Oh, then this poor soul evidently believes that somehow “nature” can and did “find a way to divide by zero.”
I am at least glad you did try to put a little distance between and this poor old man.
Also, in other news, some folks think there may be as many as 7 Mary's in the NT. Somehow you think 6 is significant and then make more stupid and tasteless comment.
You seem to be in a mindless keyboard frenzy and need to slow down.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TF49
AS,
You say you "follow the evidence." You seem to have some education and a scientific background.
You posted the video below and seemed to support the logic as you offered it up as support to one of your theses.
So, do you adhere to and support the logic shown in this video? You posted it and deemed it important to the discussion at hand.
Do you adhere to and support the logic displayed in the video?
A simple yes or no should suffice.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by curdog4570
If I told you to explain Quantum Physics, but insisted you use only grade school arithmetic, you would laugh at me and tell me to get an education first. .
YOu are spiritually blind and insist on evidence you can see with your eyes.
You are spiritually ignorant.
Willfully so.
Spiritually ignorant, can you even define that?
And here's the math, simple enough for an 80 year old:
TF, That video wasn't my first choice. There's a better one out there I just couldn't locate on short notice that explains it better. But it serves the purpose of presenting the math at a 4th grade level for Gene.
As for your question, it's ill formed. Science is not a religion so there's not need to "adhere" to a belief.
As an example I do not "adhere" to Newtonian physics, like you may "adhere" to the book of Romans. Newtonian physics is a useful tool, but we also understand, thanks to Einstein, it's an incomplete model of that phenomena.
What I presented above is a mathematical model supporting the hypothesis of how our known universe could form form "nothing", but at this point it has not been experimentally verified.
At this point, I find the "Universe From Nothing" hypothesis as laid out by Lawrence Krauss the most convincing, but if it is experimentally disproved tomorrow, then it will fall to the trash heap of history along with Marxism.
But just because I can't say I absolutely know something is true, I feel no need to substitute Magic for the answer just so I can claim I do.
I wouldn't say he's "wrong as hell", just doesn't do the best job.
I also said "at least 6", some count even more than your 7.
As for the "tasteless comments", you need to re-read who wrote what. Ringman was making the rape allegations, not me. In addition was I clear that I see no reason to associate this "Mary" who was entwined with a Roman Soldier with a Biblical character.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
