Because we know that the "closer in time" we get to the Big Bang the less those laws apply/ work. It's simple.why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang.
Because we know that the "closer in time" we get to the Big Bang the less those laws apply/ work. It's simple.why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang.
By "some" you mean "everyone but you"?
A distinction made by you... Only 20 hits for "theity". 19 in posts by you and the last in a post where it's a quote of you. :shrug:No, the distinction is in the religious threads, too, not just here.
In one of his proofs? Okay.Also see Stenger's work. He necessarily and purposefully leaves out the 'Deity' in one of his proofs showing that the God who is supposed to be everywhere is found nowhere (since the Deity would not be around).
Stenger, Physics and Psychics (1990) p. 88But, as we have seen, movement does not require a mover, and modern quantum mechanics has shown that not all effects require a cause. And even if they did, why would the Prime Mover need to be a supernatural anthropomorphic deity such as the Judaeo-Christian God? Why could it not just as well be the material universe itself?
Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001)And, yet again, because I can predict the line of criticism that this book will generate, I need to make it clear up-front that I am not claiming that the absence of evidence eliminates all possibilities for a god to exist in every conceivable form. And, I am not evaluating all the theological and philosophical arguments for or against God. I am simply evaluating the scientific arguments and claimed scientific evidence for a deity according to the same criteria that science applies to any extraordinary claim. I conclude that, so far, they fail to meet the test.
So, at best, you've got you, and Stenger who "leaves out" deity. In one of his publications.Rare to get one over on you.
So, at best, you've got you, and Stenger who "leaves out" deity. In one of his publications.
And? Will that bring the count up to two occasions where he doesn't use the word?Some of us on Stenger's AVOID e-mail list work with him on editing his books before they come out, the next one to be 'The Folly of Faith'.
yeah right. And a redefinition of deity besides adding anew word.New words come out all the time; however, I may be charging a royalty for the word 'Theity', as it has certainly become a necessary word for distinction among gods. It will be in the next dictionary.
What's a "founding father"?Did you check out those founding fathers?
What's a "founding father"?
Links please.George Washington and the others, such as Jefferson.
And so far the only use of "theity" seems to be yours.Also, a bonnet is a hood over here, and a lift is an elevator.
Links please..
And so far the only use of "theity" seems to be yours.
That's cool!! This is how words are created. What was the meaning again?
You stated:Anywhere on Google with 'deity' and 'founding fathers'. Didn't you English guys pay attention after the colony was lost.
Please provide a link to the founding fathers using the word theity.The founding fathers of the U.S. even stressed a deity over a theity.
Far fewer.Only 20,000 or so to go to match Shakespeare.
You stated:
Please provide a link to the founding fathers using the word theity.
In other words you were waffling.They didn't use 'theity', for I hadn't invented it yet. They had to explain the distinction by using more words.
In other words you were waffling.
I was there at the beginning.....basic cable was still playing re-runs.
which page and line show that he is wrong?