If anyone here can act as an interpreter for Lordcow, I'd pay for a transcript of what ever is supposedly written above...Come to think of it, no I wouldn't.
Quote of the Century!
Lordcow...
"its like a cosmologist firing up a computer simulation of the early universe that consists of particles and the time dependent laws they must obey and watching it evolve. this is a completely consistent scenario, it happens all the time. god, in this case the cosmologist, brought into being matter, from which point on followed the laws he decreed."
How quaint!
Not a very good meta-for god I think. So what's going to be next? Scrambled eggs on toast, by Chef!
Your digital dictum is dilatory
i gather i don't need to reply to the patronization.
i know its dilatory, i even said so in response earlier to you:
"i'll agree that invoking god as an explanation for existence doesn't actually serve any explanation."
but that is not the point here, i was replying to your:
"To create uses energy and the THING would deminish, so to create EVERYTHING means there'd be none of IT left...So where's god?"
and was trying to show that the thing needn't not be diminshed, never mind whether it was dilatory.
not to mention a fallacy.
The computer programme, as written by the creator, would 'mimic' IT's world, and in such fashion IT would be bounded by the self same laws in IT's program. Unless IT decided to make up = down...
what're you on about, the programmer is able to create any universe with any laws he chooses, why does it have to mimic his world?
But all of which would be predictable...measurable.
what would?
And anyhow, what created the programmer??? Coming back at ya!
again, besides the point, i'm not arguing for god as an explanation for creation, i'm rebutting your claim that had he created he would've been completely diminished.
Griff...ps. in your quote, I corrected your spelling; your grammer is another matter.
apart from your ironic mispelling of grammar you're kidding right? your changing of my 'scenarion' to 'scenario' is the only instance i can see, which was quite obviously a typo and not a spelling mistake. why bother pointing it out except to aggravate? and what is wrong with my grammar? i'd be interested to see you cite an example.
Why...is...it...certainly...not...true....?
Which part didn't you understand? I'll be happy to explain!
you mean you'll be happy to scoff, mock, patronise, and then give another half-arsed reply that invalidates your cocky assurance.
Oh, the bit about certainty...Well, if it were certainly true then we would all know, wouldn't we....
IT can't be a half certainty, now, can IT? This wouldn't be good for god! Only half correct, half a creator....??
Sooo IT is 100% non-existent. Beecaause IT is not 100% existent!
as i said before, shoddy logic. here's a counter example - we do not know whether the egyptians built the pyramids, therefore it is certainly true that they didn't create the pyramids. though i'm not sure whether the absurdity of this statement will be aparent to you.
the opposite of 'certainly true', is not 'certainly not true', it is 'not certainly true'.
you might find that you are assuming that if god created the universe, he would've instilled an innate belief in all've us of this fact, which need not be true.
i was replying to your claim:
"The only truth is that there IS a Universe...its origin {by goddly creation} is certainly NOT true: yet another thing god can NOT do!"
whether the universe has a natural or supernatural origin, or whether it has an origin at all, is quite an open question. you make the strong claim that it definitely doesn't have a supernatural origin, to which you give no support when called on except meaningless wordplay, which seems to be your trend judging by the rest've your posts in this thread.
"Calling all hedgehogs, calling all hedgehogs. Come in hedgehogs!"
Keep reading Lordcow, you may learn something about everything....
Griff....The trouble is with physicists, they like to think they think they know it all; quite obviously they don't!
bored with knocking 'faithers' now you want to try your hand at generalised insults towards physicists? in my experience physicists are actually much more humble when it comes to knowledge than the average man. would you care to qualify your assertion, or at least point out where i imply i know everything? i won't hold my breath. on the contrary i am trying to ascertain how YOU seem to know everything, and am quite happy for you to teach me, but am becoming less hopefull.
To create uses energy and the THING would deminish, so to create EVERYTHING means there'd be none of IT left...So where's god?
