It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Authors of the Bible: The Greatest Plagiarism Ever Believed

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest






Three High Holy Feasts per year (Passover, Pentecost, and Atonement) say you're mistaken.


Nonsense! Those holy days don't celebrate or prophecy a dying god.


Well, you declared it to be "nonsense", so it certainly must be true. Most people support their opinions with facts, but you must be exempt from that.


How do you prove a negative?

Conversely, how about you provide the biblical scripture/prophecy that calls for God Almighty to incarnate as a human being and willing die, by murder/sacrifice, for the sins of mankind?

Otherwise, your argument is moot.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The State of Texas does receive Federal funding for its educational program. But in relation to how that funding is used as in all States in the Union it is well within its rights to apply that funding in the context of the support inherent the majority of its population.

So unless you live in Texas and in so far as your taxpayer dollars the likelihood that it is being used to fund the Texas school system. In all probability is a null hypothesis on your part and you simply do not understand how things actually work.

The thing is this, when it comes to Atheist scientist claims that God can be shown not to exist really is irrelevant to the discussion. Proving a negative is irrelevant and that is also obvious in relation to what is know today about science.

The whole is case is apparent when addressing the issue of the Singularity of a Black Hole. I laugh whenever someone suggests that believing in God is not different than believing in a Green Spaghetti Monster. This is because in relation to what we comprehend of the Singularities of a Black Hole?

Our math presents Infinity, in which case anything in fact is possible.

So in so far as Science there is no way to Objectify Atheism despite your beliefs that it can.

You fail to understand that the Majority of Christians are not secular, either in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, South and Central America, Africa as well as Asia and anywhere else on Earth. Yes of course there are many who are and the majority such individuals are good people who live their lives in relative peace


The problem you seem to not understand seem to understand is that literal translation of the Holy Bible relates to, not just religious extremism. But also a Philosophy that relates upon how to live ones life.

Clearly your Achilles in this your OP and subsequent Myopic discourse with respect to the topic.
edit on 15-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
In relation to how that funding is used as in all States in the Union it is well within its rights to apply that funding in the context of the support inherent the majority of its population


The argument wasn't that the state was in it's right to do so, it was that a member inquired as to when the last time a "Christian-based-law" was put into effect.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
So unless you live in Texas and in so far as your taxpayer dollars the likelihood that it is being used to fund the Texas school system. In all probability is a null hypothesis on your part and you simply do not understand how things actually work.


Taxpayers in Texas are still taxpayers. The fact is, the public school system there is being forced to acknowledge one specific religious stance on a matter and deem it as valid as science, but without the scrutiny that the scientific method enforces upon hypotheses.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The thing is this, when it comes to Atheist scientist claims that God can be shown not to exist really is irrelevant to the discussion.


Wow. After hundreds of posts in another topic, where every single atheist responded to you stating that they do not claim that god cannot exist, you still hold onto this tired old argument.

A general god cannot be shown to not exist because it's so generic and infallible, that it would be impossible to prove that negative.

However, if a person begins ascribing details, stories, actions, events, and traits to a god, then it becomes falsifiable because those things all directly interfere with history, biology, geology, astronomy and so forth, and all that's needed to disprove those details is objective observation and experimentation, and the discovery of something that contradicts the claimed details of that god.

When that occurs, it's no longer proving a negative.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Proving a negative is irrelevant and that is also obvious in relation to what is know today about science.


No one is denying this...


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The whole is case is apparent when addressing the issue of the Singularity of a Black Hole. I laugh whenever someone suggests that believing in God is not different than believing in a Green Spaghetti Monster. This is because in relation to what we comprehend of the Singularities of a Black Hole?

Our math presents Infinity, in which case anything in fact is possible.


You seem to be going incredibly off topic with this. Start a new topic on the matter, and I will respond to it. Unless you can show that it is indeed on topic


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
So in so far as Science there is no way to Objectify Atheism despite your beliefs that it can.


How does one 'objectify atheism'?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You fail to understand that the Majority of Christians are not secular


I think you need to read what the definition of "secular" means. No Christian is secular, they are theists of a religion.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes of course there are many who are and the majority such individuals are good people who live their lives in relative peace


Explain to me how a Christian can be secular


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The problem you seem to not understand seem to understand is that literal translation of the Holy Bible relates to, not just religious extremism. But also a Philosophy that relates upon how to live ones life.

Clearly your Achilles in this your OP and subsequent discourse with respect to the topic.


You don't need to have a literal belief or an exact translation of the bible in order to understand that it plagiarized other religious figures and stories.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Interesting thread ghost, S+F!

I've been following you a while now and I have to say i am impressed by your intelligence, rationality, and humility. You are in my opinion the most valuable member of the ats community and you have done more to advance the denial of ignorance and education of others than anyone else I have seen on ats.

I agree completely with your assessment of the bible and it's authors. I find it ironic that possibly the largest conspiracy in world history to control the minds of man and rake in substantial amounts of money and preferential treatment, is so vehemently defended by members of such a prominent conspiracy site as ats.

The bible is an inaccurate record of history, plain and simple. It contains more contradictions and historical inconsistencies than any other so-called historical document, and yet it is taken as absolute truth by more people than any other publication in history.

The perverse nature of biblical teachings is completely and wholeheartedly ignored by its adherents, and the fact that it has ironically become the most protected publication in history, (shouldn't God's word be able to protect itself without plebeian soap-boxing and attacks on scientific rational analysis?), has lead to such favouritism as churches being exempt from taxes, (so they don't want to support the financial development and sustainability of their own nation by piously claiming to be superior to it?), being free to promote discrimination and bigotry, and having freedom to attack and condemn rational secular thought.

Concepts like the lie that the US was founded as a Christian nation, the lie that "the gospels" are historically accurate, the lie that creationism or intelligent design is scientific, the lie that the bible was the basis for scientific principles and method, the lie that the bible has been proven prophetic, and many other such dishonest concepts all contribute to the ignorant and presumed superiority of faith over rational logic and critical thinking.

In the entirety of human history, there has never been a publication that has influenced and misinformed a greater population of men and women than the bible. This is seen as a positive attribute by its adherents, when in fact the complete opposite is true.

If God wrote a book, it wouldn't be written from the perspective of a bunch of humans who can't write an understandable explanation of God and history. If the bible were inerrant, it wouldn't be errant in such simple details as the gospels not being historically accurate or the value of pi being 3. If the bible was truly the word of a supreme being, it would be immediately recognisable as such, it wouldn't have to be forcibly taught to people under the threat of death and torture that it is such.

It is blindingly obvious, as you have succinctly detailed in this thread, that the bible was produced as an accumulation of inaccurate history, myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish by near-savages from several thousands of years ago, which was then embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled over centuries, before being translated poorly into several languages successively.

Keep up the good work ghost, your efforts are appreciated and you are a credit to your nation. People like you give me faith that one day the general populace of the USA may finally catch up to the rest of the western world who understand the difference between living a good humanitarian life and living an ignorantly pious one.


edit on 15-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Ancient belief systems and their comprehension are not necessarily related to modern interpretation. Words as defined today do not in some factual context imply that thousands of years ago one could interpret meaning as absolutely related to how such terms were defined in the past.

In relation the term Satan in such cultures can be understood as synonymous to a Defense Attorney. in that sense someone who defends the position of the accused. Just as you present in your comments that others agree with you position and that constitutes evidence that you position can be implied as valid, which for the record is meaningless.

You ask me to provide you evidence that Christians could be secular yet you fail to understand that if they were not?

Such a thing as an Atheists would not exist upon this planet.

"You seem to be going incredibly off topic with this. Start a new topic on the matter, and I will respond to it. Unless you can show that it is indeed on topic . "

It is on topic, as you have presented that science can be taught without taking into consideration religion. Despite the fact you cannot provide physical evidence that supports your position.

You have presented that because you cannot see evidence of God, God does not exist.

Literally what objective basis does anyone really have to support your position?

None actually, as in fact scientist that support atheism do not do science justice by supporting such a claim.
edit on 15-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
Interesting thread ghost, S+F!

I've been following you a while now and I have to say i am impressed by your intelligence, rationality, and humility. You are in my opinion the most valuable member of the ats community and you have done more to advance the denial of ignorance and education of others than anyone else I have seen on ats.


Wow, that's quite the compliment. I'm glad you've enjoyed my topics and posts here.

I'm not quite sure I'm the most valuable member of ATS, there are plenty of others here that do a much better job at explaining things and finding new information after all.

I couldn't agree more with the rest of your post. Actually, I'm not quite sure what I could add to it. Well put


originally posted by: spygeek
People like you give me faith that one day the general populace of the USA may finally catch up to the rest of the western world who understand the difference between living a good humanitarian life and living an ignorantly pious one.


Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm Canadian



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I'll just leave it at you pretending that my argument is moot. That seems to be your default setting.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Again friend I suggest you stop presenting such a Grandiose Position, that in reality is only related to your Ideology.



Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]


Source

In a broad sense if you which to suggest that God could exist then you are not an Atheist, you are an Agnostic.

Perhaps a Closet Agnostic unwilling to admit that your tendency to support an alternative position to the above is not and specifically and factually Agnosticism.
edit on 15-1-2016 by Kashai because: Contemt edit



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Ancient belief systems and their comprehension are not necessarily related to modern interpretation. Words as defined today do not in some factual context imply that thousands of years ago one could interpret meaning as absolutely related to how such terms were defined in the past.


So you're saying that we can discount the entirety of all religion's scriptures unless they are of modern origin?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Just as you present in your comments that others agree with you position and that constitutes evidence that you position can be implied as valid, which for the record is meaningless.


Please feel free to quote where I stated that, because I most certainly do not ascribe to validity through population agreement.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You ask me to provide you evidence that Christians could be secular yet you fail to understand that if they were not?


So I take it you have no evidence that a Christian can be secular and a Christian at the same time?

A religious person cannot be secular because secular means to be without religion. If I am wrong, and you have evidence, please present it.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Such a thing as an Atheists would not exist upon this planet.


If there were no religion and no beliefs in gods then technically everyone would Atheists. If there were never religion and there were never beliefs in gods, then the word "Atheism" wouldn't need to exist. Correct. What's your point?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
It is on topic, as you have presented that science can be taught without taking into consideration religion. Despite the fact you cannot provide physical evidence that supports your position.


Here's the scientific method:



Once religion adheres to those basic scientific principles, it can be added to the Science classroom. Until then, it is not scientific.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You have presented that because you cannot see evidence of God, God does not exist.


I presented that because Religion does not use the methodology that Science does to come to conclusions. It is a totally different way of thinking, thus not the same subject.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Literally what objective basis does anyone really have to support your position?


And what position is that? If it's that religion is not science, read above.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
None actually, as in fact scientist that support atheism do not do science justice by supporting such a claim.


Atheism isn't a claim, it is a lack of a belief.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

Again friend I suggest you stop presenting such a Grandiose Position, that in reality is only related to your Ideology.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]


I like how you claim that Atheism is an Ideology, and then post an accurate description of Atheism, which shows how it isn't an Ideology.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
In a broad sense if you which to suggest that God could exist then you are not an Atheist, you are an Agnostic.


Perhaps you should read the quote you provided. No where does it state that an Atheist cannot say that a God could exist.

Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. Link

I never claimed that we cannot know if god exists or not. Stating "a god could exist" and that we may stumble upon evidence in the future that one does exist is the opposite of what Agnosticism claims.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Perhaps a Closet Agnostic unwilling to admit that your tendency to support an alternative position to the above is not and specifically and factually Agnosticism.


Once again, please review the definitions of the words you're using before posting. It makes this process so much easier for us all.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Once you can present how a negative can be proven then you can offer as to why Atheism is not different than religion in that respect.

The rest of your commentary is nonsense and unrelated to rational conversation in relation to fact.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

Again friend I suggest you stop presenting such a Grandiose Position, that in reality is only related to your Ideology.



Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]


Source

In a broad sense if you which to suggest that God could exist then you are not an Atheist, you are an Agnostic.

Perhaps a Closet Agnostic unwilling to admit that your tendency to support an alternative position to the above is not and specifically and factually Agnosticism.


ghost has responded already but i feel i should add a little.

it is possible to be an atheist and agnostic the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.


Atheism and agnosticism are not entirely mutually exclusive, and atheists are not "actually agnostic because no one can ever know whether God exists." This is a highly contested point among religious believers and atheistic philosophers alike, as most, if not all, thinking atheists would happily change their minds given the right evidence, and thus could be considered "agnostic" in this sense. However, this conflates the ideas of belief and knowledge. Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge - which is often accepted on all sides of the theistic debate. Atheism takes the position that it is rational to think that gods don't exist, based on logic and lack of evidence. Agnostics, on the other hand, state that the lack of knowledge cannot inform their opinion at all. There are agnostic atheists, who can be either weak or strong. It is at least logically possible for a theist to be an agnostic (e.g., "I believe in a pantheon of lobsterish zoomorphic deities, but cannot prove this with evidence, and acknowledge and embrace that my belief is rooted in faith")—but it is markedly difficult to find anyone who will fess up to such a position.


i would like to direct you to rationalwiki's article on athiesm, which is the most thorough and in depth analysis that is readily accessible i have found so far online.

Interestingly, and worryingly, atheists are the most mistrusted and marginalised minority in the US. More americans would vote for an african american, woman, catholic, hispanic, jewish, mormon, gay or lesbian, or muslim president before they would vote for an athiest, and nearly 48% would disapprove of their son or daughter marrying an athiest, compared to 33.5% for a muslim and 27.2% for an african american.

as good ol' george bush said:

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.



To be an atheist in such an environment is not to be one more religious minority among many in a strongly pluralist society. Rather, Americans construct the atheist as the symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether.
-American Sociological Review.

Thank God (xD) i live in a secular country.


originally posted by: Kashai
Once you can present how a negative can be proven then you can offer as to why Atheism is not different than religion in that respect.

The rest of your commentary is nonsense and unrelated to rational conversation in relation to fact.


Atheism is a religion in the same way "off" is a tv station.

Atheism is the belief that there cannot be made a rational argument for the existence of God. It is not necessary to "prove the negative" for atheism to be. This is a common misconception and is outlined in the rationalwiki article i linked earlier. Please read the article in its entirety in order to end this misunderstanding.
edit on 15-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
Once you can present how a negative can be proven then you can offer as to why Atheism is not different than religion in that respect


Once again, Atheism isn't necessarily the claim that gods do not exist. If you need proof of that, read the quote you provided.

I've also explained this very issue to you already in this topic, and in other topics too.

Here's the quote that's from this very page in which I responded to this very notion that you're making once again:

A general god cannot be shown to not exist because it's so generic and infallible, that it would be impossible to prove that negative.

However, if a person begins ascribing details, stories, actions, events, and traits to a god, then it becomes falsifiable because those things all directly interfere with history, biology, geology, astronomy and so forth, and all that's needed to disprove those details is objective observation and experimentation, and the discovery of something that contradicts the claimed details of that god.

When that occurs, it's no longer proving a negative.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
"Interestingly, and worryingly, atheists are the most mistrusted and marginalised minority in the US. More americans would vote for an african american, woman, catholic, hispanic, jewish, mormon, gay or lesbian, or muslim president before they would vote for an athiest, and nearly 48% would disapprove of their son or daughter marrying an athiest, compared to 33.5% for a muslim and 27.2% for an african American.

Actually Illegal Aliens fall into the category that you seem to think is implied. The really crazy thing about deporting all of them as some have suggested makes perfect sense. Is that those that support such a position are no willing to replace them even at minimum wage in the United States.

Extremist positions really make little sense as is the case in relation to the Atheist movement. There is no scientific support for the Ghost147's position, despite he or she has claimed that there is. There is not evidence to support that
a negative can be proven. While there is scientific support that anything is possible given the works of the best minds
of this Epoch.

Religion in general has an intrinsic quality beyond any literal translation of its artifacts, that is obvious. Ghost147 in his commentary clearly chooses to ignore that issue to the detriment of his argument.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

To be obvious I have provided mathematical evidence that God can exist. In relation to what is current with respect to understanding what is a singularity and in respect to a Black Hole. God can be shown to exist in relation to the obvious fact that mankind has not even one tenth of a percent, in relation to comprehending what reality in fact is.

These are truths as evident as the nose on your face and undeniable in rational conversation.

You claim that you support a position that God could exist. Despite that fact you deny it from the materialistic contextif treating the Holy Bible as literal. The majority of the people in this world that are religious do not treat there beliefsas absolute.

A Secular Christian is one who relates to the Holy Bible as a book related to symbols.


edit on 15-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
There is no scientific support for the Ghost147's position, despite he or she has claimed that there is.


I still have yet to get a definition from you as to what my position is, and a quote stating that I am claiming scientific support for that position.


originally posted by: Kashai
There is not evidence to support that
a negative can be proven.


I have already acknowledged that it is logically false to claim that a negative can be proven multiple times, on this very page.

Why do you continue to say that I claim otherwise when the text is right there and right here saying that I agree?


originally posted by: Kashai
While there is scientific support that anything is possible given the works of the best minds
of this Epoch.


I agree....


originally posted by: Kashai
Religion in general has an intrinsic quality beyond any literal translation of its artifacts, that is obvious.


And that quality would be, what?


originally posted by: Kashai
Ghost147 in his commentary clearly chooses to ignore that issue to the detriment of his argument.


By agreeing with you that a negative cannot be proven, and that anything is possible?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

That Religion relates to moral values.

Sure there are some that abuse religion in an effort to promote a Negative Agenda (like Isis).

But the majority of people in this world relate philosophically to religion and not literally.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

To be obvious I have provided mathematical evidence that God can exist.


"To be obvious" ?

I haven't seen your 'mathematical evidence', could you show me where you posted it, I must have accidentally skipped over it.


originally posted by: Kashai
In relation to what is current with respect to understanding what is a singularity and in respect to a Black Hole. God can be shown to exist in relation to the obvious fact that mankind has not even one tenth of a percent, in relation to comprehending what reality in fact is.


You keep spouting nonsense, but I see no citations to back your nonsense.


originally posted by: Kashai
These are truths as evident as the nose on your face and undeniable in rational conversation.


yes, yes, it's all so obvious and evident, it must be because you keep saying it is. it's so obvious, in fact, that you don't even bother to provide citations to your claims. Odd...


originally posted by: Kashai
You claim that you support a position that God could exist.


Yes. It's strange though, just a few paragraphs earlier you claimed my position wasn't what you're saying here.


originally posted by: Kashai
Despite that fact you deny it from the materialistic contextif treating the Holy Bible as literal.


If the bible is to be taken literally, it was plagiarized, as shown in the OP. If the bible is to be taking metaphorically, then none of the stories in the bible are factual, therefore not to be believed as factual.

I have an absence of believe in any god because there hasn't been proof to show one exists. I acknowledge that one could exist. However, there is no reason to humor the concept as even remotely plausible when everything we have seen has had a natural origin, without the need for magical powers and beings to create them.


originally posted by: Kashai
The majority of the people in this world that are religious do not treat there beliefsas absolute.


I would say that is probably correct if you're referring to a literal belief in the totality of each of their respective religions.

However, I would also say that all religious people treat some aspect of their religion with absolutism, otherwise they wouldn't have a reason to ascribe that religion. These specific aspects are cherry-picked from individual to individual. Hence the existence of denominations.


originally posted by: Kashai
A Secular Christian is one who relates to the Holy Bible as a book related to symbols.


Christianity = a religion. Secular = nonreligious

Something doesn't add up.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

That Religion relates to moral values.

Sure there are some that abuse religion in an effort to promote a Negative Agenda (like Isis).

But the majority of people in this world relate philosophically to religion and not literally.


Could you quote the parts of my posts that you're responding to? It makes it a bit difficult to desipher what part you're referring to sometimes.

I think in this comment you're responding to the question I asked about: What quality does religion in general intrinsically hold? correct?

In which case I would say that that is probably correct for at least the majority of religions (I can't speak for all of them, as I am not familiar with every single one). Religion tends to state what it believes is moral and what isn't.

I don't see how that is relevant to the argument though. Are you claiming that all Religions have the same moral code? Or that you can only have morality through religion?

I don't understand your point.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

You simply do not understand modern physics and what in definition presents infinity with respect to relating to the singularity of a black hole. If you did then would not even suggest that your position makes any sense. You simply didnot take the trouble to look into a conclusion that makes your point irrelevant. Fundamentally the issue of infinity in physics makes anything possible. If you need a link to why perhaps you should educate yourself into what is common sense otherwise.


In general secularist do not demonize others in general for their beliefs.
edit on 15-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join