The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[TheLurch]

NYou did not answer the question: [B]How many scientists do you need to qualify for a general consensus doncerning th epresent view o the origins o our universe based on the evidence o Quantum Mechanics?

Assuming i'm interpreting the fractured spelling correctly...

You're not still waiting. You're not paying attention, since i already answered it:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...400#post487400

EDIT: I also explained somewhere above that you can't really have a scientific consensus about something completely theoretical, since a consensus forms in part through scientists being convinced by evidence. But you said that post was too long for your reading comprehension to deal with.

[shunyadragon]

Assuming i'm interpreting the fractured spelling correctly...

You're not still waiting. You're not paying attention, since i already answered it:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...400#post487400

EDIT: I also explained somewhere above that you can't really have a scientific consensus about something completely theoretical, since a consensus forms in part through scientists being convinced by evidence. But you said that post was too long for your reading comprehension to deal with.

No, it was not too long for reading comprehension. It was too long to be meaningful.

No you did not respond coherently. Talking about a 'bunch of scientists,' and raising the fog index concerning phony 'theoretical issues' is a dodge. All science is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and it remains many remain unresolved. That does not mean there is not a general consensus.

Still waiting . . .

How many scientists would satisfy your requirements or a general consensus?

[Cow Poke]

How many scientists would satisfy your requirements or a general consensus?

What does that even mean? Is that like "do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"

[Sparko]

No, it was not too long for reading comprehension. It was too long to be meaningful.

No you did not respond coherently. Talking about a 'bunch of scientists,' and raising the fog index concerning phony 'theoretical issues' is a dodge. All science is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and it remains many remain unresolved. That does not mean there is not a general consensus.

Still waiting . . .

How many scientists would satisfy your requirements or a general consensus?

90% of them

Get to work.

[tabibito]

Oh come now: 4 or 5 theologians (provided they have enough letters after their names) are enough to establish "majority consensus" and "peer reviewed" approval, even when what they say is diametrically in opposition to the scriptural record.

[TheLurch]

No, it was not too long for reading comprehension. It was too long to be meaningful.

You can't be bothered to read even six short paragraphs? Can i take it from that you've never read a book in your life, because they're all too long to be meaningful?

Why should anyone put the effort of discussing anything with you at all if you're going to invent a completely bogus excuse to ignore anything someone besides yourself has to say?


Debating whether i can be bothered to go through your posting history to note how many times your posts had a higher word count than that.

[Cow Poke]

Debating whether i can be bothered to go through your posting history to note how many times your posts had a higher word count than that.

That would be a waste of time, but you know that.

[One Bad Pig]

You can't be bothered to read even six short paragraphs? Can i take it from that you've never read a book in your life, because they're all too long to be meaningful?

Why should anyone put the effort of discussing anything with you at all if you're going to invent a completely bogus excuse to ignore anything someone besides yourself has to say?

Note the shunya quote in my signature from 13 years ago. He was discussing the reading of Baha'i works, fwiw.

[TheLurch]

What does that even mean? Is that like "do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"

And yet...

Here we have a nice long one:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...516#post487516

And here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...372#post487372

In this post, he recommends reading an entire article:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...819#post485819

And again here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...w-anyway/page6

Here he produces a large wall of text:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...340#post485340


And that's just on this topic. So it's rank hypocrisy.

[shunyadragon]

Oh come now: 4 or 5 theologians (provided they have enough letters after their names) are enough to establish "majority consensus" and "peer reviewed" approval, even when what they say is diametrically in opposition to the scriptural record.

Meaningless response, the scientists cited are not all those that support the generally accepted cosmology of the origins of our universe. They do represent a larger consensus of scientsts.

Theologians are more like a million monkeys on typewriters, they rarely come up with the same answer, where as scientists do for the most part form a consensus in their own field. The science of Quantum Mechanics is almost universally accepted as the basis of the physics and cosmology of our physical existence.

Partial list of those that support Quantum Nothing origin of our universe and a possible multiverse:

Alan Guth
Stephan Hawking
Dongshan He
Lawrance Krauss
Andrei Lindt
Max Tegmark
Thanu Padmanbhan
Leonard Emanuel Parker
Carl Sagan
Steinhardt
Tom Shanks
Paul Steinhardt
Alexander Vilenkin

[Cow Poke]

Theologians are more like a million monkeys on typewriters

JimL is helping you with your analogies, isn't he.

[shunyadragon]

Meaningless response, the scientists cited are not all those that support the generally accepted cosmology of the origins of our universe. They do represent a larger consensus of scientsts.

Theologians are more like a million monkeys on typewriters, they rarely come up with the same answer, where as scientists do for the most part form a consensus in their own field. The science of Quantum Mechanics is almost universally accepted as the basis of the physics and cosmology of our physical existence.

Partial list of those that support Quantum Nothing origin of our universe and a possible multiverse:

Alan Guth
Stephan Hawking
Dongshan He
Lawrance Krauss
Andrei Lindt
Max Tegmark
Thanu Padmanbhan
Leonard Emanuel Parker
Carl Sagan
Steinhardt
Tom Shanks
Paul Steinhardt
Alexander Vilenkin

Add more;

George F. R. Ellis
Roger Penrose
Steven Weinberg

[TheLurch]

Partial list of those that support Quantum Nothing origin of our universe and a possible multiverse:
...
Carl Sagan

Given that Sagan died in '96, and that was the year Linde proposed infinite inflation, i'm curious as to your evidence for putting him on the list.

[seer]

Add more;

Alan Guth
Stephan Hawking
Dongshan He
Lawrance Krauss
Andrei Lindt
Max Tegmark
Thanu Padmanbhan
Leonard Emanuel Parker
Carl Sagan
Steinhardt
Tom Shanks
Paul Steinhardt
Alexander Vilenkin

George F. R. Ellis
Roger Penrose
Steven Weinberg

Except Paul Steinhardt no longer believes that, he hold to a cyclic universe, and George Ellis believes that God created the universe. And where do you get that from Carl Sagan? So your list is not trustworthy.

[Cow Poke]

Given that Sagan died in '96, and that was the year Linde proposed infinite inflation, i'm curious as to your evidence for putting him on the list.

Evidence? You want EVIDENCE!?!?!?!?!