Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a big fan of direct evidence. Got any.
You basically have nothing but a prediction. One that appears to be tenuous at best.
Your evaluation of its tenuousness is based on your ignorance of the relevant science. The trend in the theoretical attempts to merge QFT with Relativity and Quantum gravity is moving in the direction of confirming, not disproving my hypotheses.
You are 100% RELIGIOUS.
Your religion is Pantheism (remember for a religion to be a "religion" it doesn't have to be "organized".
You are devoted to your religion.
Your religion believes in a god.
You believe that your god created you.
You have faith and belief that "your" god is the only 1 TRUE god.
You believe that if people disagree with you about your god, then they MUST be wrong!!!!!
That is no different than saying you are religious about Nature because you firmly believe all the attributes discovered about it by science. His religiosity is based on the known attributes of Reality, NOT sacred books or other religious sources of divine revelation.
That is no different than saying you are religious about Nature because you firmly believe all the attributes discovered about it by science. His religiosity is based on the known attributes of Reality, NOT sacred books or other religious sources of divine revelation.
Your evaluation of its tenuousness is based on your ignorance of the relevant science. The trend in the theoretical attempts to merge QFT with Relativity and Quantum gravity is moving in the direction of confirming, not disproving my hypotheses.
I think, with all due respect, and with no ill-will intended, that you are to far out there in la-la land, for lack of a better term. This is about there being or not being a creator, not advanced physics. I believe you have grossly over-thunk it, my friend.
Furthermore, I strongly question the RELEVANCE of the science you cite and use. Way too far out in the weeds, to quote a golfing term.
Last edited by Salty Water; 07-12-2021 at 12:54 PM..
Your evaluation of its tenuousness is based on your ignorance of the relevant science. The trend in the theoretical attempts to merge QFT with Relativity and Quantum gravity is moving in the direction of confirming, not disproving my hypotheses.
If you ever tell us what the "relevant science" is, we can all go buy a textbook, study it, and then we'll all agree with you.
If you ever tell us what the "relevant science" is, we can all go buy a textbook, study it, and then we'll all agree with you.
Better yet, just tell us the name of the text book...
I've read more books about this sort of thing than most people I know. I've even recommended a good many in this forum. Nothing that conflicts with what science has been able to establish as truth "beyond a reasonable doubt." Nothing that extends beyond those boundaries other than as properly noted.
In very stark contrast to people in this forum forever claiming facts and truth that are really nothing of the sort, without reference to any reputable books or published information. Sources that are also committed to "the truth and nothing but the truth." Without reference to anything really, other than wacky sudo-scientists and some pretty self-centered notions about their own beliefs regardless the lack of well reasoned justification.
No shortage of that sort of thing in this forum or among people in general, but needless to say, not everyone believes whatever they want regardless the facts of these matters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.