Cyprus-Forum.com

[MR-from-NG]

Something that doesn't exist also "does not have a beginning or an end". That is true in both the case of your "God" and "my stupidity". Both are things that exist only in your mind, created to serve your psychological needs. Fortunately you are too stupid to understand this, so you can continue living in blissful ignorance imagining that you are an intelligent person who will go to paradise.

Just go kill yourself. Even your parents will probably rejoice!

I can see that your religion has provided you with high morals

What's my religion?

Don't you claim to be a Christian?

Wrong. GR's real name is Muhammed Yarrak Ali Dayi and he is a Muslim brother

[Get Real!]

Wrong. GR's real name is Muhammed Yarrak Ali Dayi and he is a Muslim brother

We must've met before! Let me guess... Afghanistan 2001 with the Mujaheddin?

[kurupetos]

King of idiots… that which is INFINITE does not have a beginning or an end... very much like your stupidity.

It is simply your presumption that the universe had a beginning. Perhaps the universe is infinite, or perhaps the overarching natural environment in which the universe exits, such as a putative multiverse in which individual universes come into being and end, is infinite. This dispenses with the need for myths about a God.

Perhaps you are just ignorant of the facts. The universe has a beginning and an end, but the force that creates and ends it is infinite.

If you cannot see or understand this force doesn't mean it does not exist.

Perhaps I am. Who says that the universe has a beginning and end? Where does this 'fact' come from? Even if the universe can be shown to have a beginning and end, this does not mean that the larger natural environment of which it is a part is not infinite. Just because you have been indoctrinated in certain beliefs, this does not make them facts.

Big Bang! You prove me right... the problem is that you are too shallow to understand it.

[kurupetos]

Who told you this ? The primitive men who wrote the bible ? You really believe that these men were God inspired ? Just go and read all the bullshit they wrote!!

But you do believe the 'scientists' who copied the Bible in their Big Bang theory, old boy!

[Lordo]

Who told you this ? The primitive men who wrote the bible ? You really believe that these men were God inspired ? Just go and read all the bullshit they wrote!!

But you do believe the 'scientists' who copied the Bible in their Big Bang theory, old boy!

which bit is it that then, is it the fact that the world was created in 6 days 5000 years ago and had a rest on the 7th day. considering the universe is still being created as we speak is neither here nor there. or is it the fact that the earth is the centre of the universe and all the other planets and stars including the sun revolve round the earth. go on which bit.


and you claim to be a neuclear scientist more like noclear scientist, you could not kook bagon in my caf you could not.

[Tim Drayton]

Random vs. Design

Consider this simple example with a glass of colored liquid.

I can just pour the liquid from a glass onto the floor and each time it’ll create a different pattern of spillage. It will always be a randomly generated spillage and I’ll most likely never be able to get two identical spillages in this way, no matter how many times I repeat the experiment.

On the other hand, I can take a glass of liquid and hold it just high enough above the floor and only allow it to spill at predetermined intervals, at predetermined quantities, and move my hand back and forth in a predetermined manner, until I form an intended “patterned” spillage.

They are both spillages… one is random and the other intentional and it is very obvious which is which by observing the patterns on the floor.

Similarly, when we observe the cosmos, planets that are visible to us are almost perfect spheres… galaxies are beautiful almost symmetrical shapes, clusters of galaxies also have mesmerizing patterns and needless to mention all the mesmerizing patterns and behavior of life forms on this tiny planet alone.

The design involved in the cosmos is obvious.

Had it just been “energy” as we know it and with no design involved, the universe and each of its contents would’ve probably looked like used bullets... shapeless, asymmetrical, and ugly.

This is explained by the anthropic principle. Had this particular universe (and physics generally considers there to be multiple universes) not developed in a way that was capable of supporting life, we wouldn't be here to know it. Only a universe that has developed in this particular way can be knowable to intelligent life, and that is the reason why it is this way. Apart from that, many of the patterns you describe are accounted for by the basic laws of physics. It's the way matter formed in a rapidly cooling and expanding universe.

[T_C]

You're not really looking at the bigger picture Tim.

The fact that there are truths we interpret as principles and laws do prove the universe is calculated or preconceived at the very least. The proof is that it occurred. It just doesn't appear that way to us as we're living within such a convenient form of "nature" which is comprehendible, everything is somehow explainable - BUT WHY?!

At least before the big bang those circumstances resulting from that event should not have existed in any coherent order. It's unbelievable that from something so raw and random, similar to striking a match - the randomness of it's spark (all be it without the smoke or the flames) - something so sensical should arise!

[Tim Drayton]

The fact that there are truths we interpret as principles and laws do prove the universe is calculated or preconceived at the very least.

The only way you can 'prove' something within the scientific paradigm is to create a testable hypothesis and then put it to the test through experimentation. I do not see how the existence of discernable principles and laws within nature leads to the conclusion that the universe is calculated or preconceived. This is pure speculation. There is no proof of this.

[Get Real!]

On randomness:

I have used randomness countless times in my programming endeavors. In one of my most recent projects I made heavy use of randomness to style (beautify) web elements generated so that they would appear more interesting to the user instead of having boring default values.

Some of these elements were complex and would accept dozens of variables that affected the element’s appearance but I always found that it was extremely rare to get a beautifully styled element out of random values. In more than 90% of the cases the randomly generated element was very ugly.

I then utilized restricted randomness which basically allows randomness from a more select set of values and although the appearances of elements improved dramatically it still wasn’t good enough. The more I restricted randomness the more beautiful the elements created and I soon found that what I was doing wasn’t terribly random anymore to get acceptable results!

Although very interesting, randomness is very chaotic and will in the vast majority of cases produce visually unimpressive designs.

[Lordo]

back to your c++ dear boy. leave the universe to those who understand.

on second thoughts gravity is what you need to concentrate on. never mind design, without gravity there would be no life on earth to evolve.

talking of g and earth aint it funny how most living things have evolved to live under a force of 1 g and yet there are living things under the sea that survive 20 and 30 g. how is that for evolution.