Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Neither entropy nor the law of the conservation of energy have any relevance to the question of whether or not we live in a closed or open universe.

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

This is no evidence at all. This is an attempt on your part to use a "logical" argument for your scripture-based world view, and it fails because your premises are hopelessly flawed.

The second law of thermodynamics does not concern itself with how much matter exists within this cosmos

Where did I say it did? This is something you are simply making up as you go along.

I didn't say that you had said that...

The way I see it Wolf is that you are trying to defend a lifestyle which you know the established Christian religions disapprove of.

Setanta wrote:

Neither entropy nor the law of the conservation of energy have any relevance to the question of whether or not we live in a closed or open universe.

Do you have any evidence of something outside our universe?

Setanta wrote:

Another painfully obvious flaw in your silly arguments is that you are willing to stipulate that your imaginary friend is eternal, but not that the cosmos is eternal. That is why people keep bringing up Occam's Razor with you--you are needlessly multiplying causes .

I am willing to discuss either one.

But the universe , since it is clearly composed of matter/energy, is subject to entropy.

God, since He would NOT be composed of matter/energy, would NOT be subject to entropy.

Setanta wrote:

It's kind of hilarious, though--you argue constantly as though an eternal universe (either a closed or a "flat" open universe) cannot be; .

I've not argued this at all. Where do you make things like this up?

Conservative estimates of the 'heat death' of the universe are that entropy will take the universe down in a finite amount (though very long) of time.

But if you are going to argue for an 'eternal' universe, then that period of time (tho very long) is but a drop in the bucket.

The expected toll from entropy has NOT taken place, so it should be evident that the universe has NOT been eternally existant. (emphasis added)

Quote:

The way I see it Wolf is that you are trying to defend a lifestyle which you know the established Christian religions disapprove of.

Wolf- there's no need to jump to the conclusion from that that I'm against dissent as you did.

What happens is that I notice things. I have been going to pubs and having late night discussions 7 nights a week for decades. Maybe if I hadn't done that I might not notice things so readily. I've done a lot of reading too. Right across the spectrum the Enlightenment brought in.

There's a psychoanalytical tool called "Resistance Analysis". The patient is got angry. Cops use the technique and knowing is forewarned. The Bill shows it now and again. Not that I watch The Bill mind you but I've seen bits of it.

There are some subjects that come up in discussions about things gradually slipping out of control and the fingers in the dyke having to keep multiplying which get some people mad.

Drinking with more or less the same bunch of blokes all the time enables you to notice patterns over stretches of time. If you're always mixing with different people you never see these patterns.

To be brief- and I am trying to be--abortion is one such subject. But there are others: divorce, anal, adultery, wills, homosexuality and contraception for example.

Contraception eh? And man can I make some snidey remarks about contraception. I can do red-hot daggers under the ribs on abortion. Divorce is simply stupid and selfish.

On contraception I can wither a stone gatepost if it offered a favourable exegesis on that subject. I don't do mind you.

What a word for an evolutionist? "Contra-conception", it is obviously an abbreviation of. Bloody hell!!

Evolution is all about conception. The docile egg waiting to see which fertiliser can fight the best. (It's quite noticeable that blokes who wear bling are more ready to fight. ) All normal eggs get fertilised. (Go on- think it!)
Evolution is about nothing else really. Assuming we exclude the silly sods which divide. Although--when I consider it more fully dividing might not be as bad as it looks from our prejudiced position.

Who's idea was it for this "we are gathered here in the eyes of God ("eyes"--geddit?) to join together this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony? It wasn't mine. God as an image in our eyes ("I"s). Even "image" begins with an "I" and a non-aspirated "Him" and ends in "mage" which is a bit like "magic" or "magi". Our mind's eyes. Our ego. It is "Us" who's "I"s look on the ceremony. That's why there have to be witnesses and officials.

If you divide you don't have to cark it. That's one plus. You might get more diffused but who's to say that's not better than coming home from an eight hour shift in the steelworks to mow the lawn, clear the leaves out of the drains and with what sounds like a chainsaw that keeps on nearly starting going off in your ear.

I'm talking about evolution through the "straight gate" of sexual selection which is pretty easy to follow, as all things in evolutionary theory are, in the pub you know the inner workings of rather than the superficial glitz. It doesn't take long, late at night, to get some of them going about the priests all shagging every-which-way, nuns on days of the week with a "Y in their names (fancy them having names eh- Our attitudes to those lifeless lumps of stuff called Venus and Uranus are conditioned by the names we give them--mine are at least.) and strangling all the infants, after baptising them they sneer, and feeding them into the fish fattening pond.

They know that stuff off by heart, and the plethora of similar stuff from which I distilled an essence, I am trying to be brief, and yet they have forgotten the Periodic Table of the Elements which they had studied for their degrees.

And finding out their reason for this is a slow process. It has never anything to do with science. It is mainly to do with daughters, sons, wives, sisters and mothers. That's where their real angle is.

You may well be an exception. The few professed atheists I've known who had no angle and were on first principles either spent their leisure pissed out of their brains and grinning sheepishly or put their neck on the railway line when they knew the express would be doing a ton.

And the touchier they are the more obvious it is. They have caused or encouraged an abortion, say. The priests have to be bullshitting and ripping the linings out of our pockets then. They're not so touchy on divorce and adultery and homosexuality hardly ever gets a mention and if it does it is to make a jest.

Those who live a lifestyle, which though not overly approved of by the priests, embraces contraception, and maybe a little adultery can, having discovered the error of their ways through practice and simple logic, dissolve all guilt with a quick and cheap penance which I am told is not possible in relation to abortion. And they would never dream of getting divorced and having to manage the racing pigeons and the allotment on their own and they would be physiologically incapable of sticking it up a bloke even for a bet.

I think it was Mr Nixon who called them the "silent majority".

I only see it that way because that is the way it is in this neck of the woods. And it has links into politics as well. It's not easy to explain as you can see.

Above in blue. Were you drunk when you posted this? Are you ever not drunk?

TKO wrote-

Quote:

Above in blue. Were you drunk when you posted this? Are you ever not drunk?

No. I was not drunk. It was about three o'clock in the afternoon and, although it was not nine below zero, it wasn't what you might call easy on the epidermis. One needed the conveniences.

I never get drunk. I had to concentrate to make that as brief as I did. If I had been even a bit merry it might have runaway out of control.

I had to avoid drink to do it.

What did you think of it? I'm aware that saying I was drunk might have given some of younger readers the impression that there was no need to bother about that but on an international site like this you can't guarantee that they are all still in nappies.

What possible difference does it make to what is printed if I am drunk, stoned or as sober as a teetotal judge on "get yourself together" medication.

Doesn't the absence of typos not prove my complete sobriety to say nothing of my sentence construction.

God, since He would NOT be composed of matter/energy, would NOT be subject to entropy.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

you are required to disclose these things , we dont need no bad influences.

Since when did I need an excuse?

Drinking with more or less the same bunch of blokes all the time enables you to notice patterns over stretches of time. If you're always mixing with different people you never see these patterns.