Phi for All

Then you shouldn't have claimed the BB was the first moment of reality. Perhaps you should think about what is so dense and hot about the early universe. At some point, I hope you can see how badly astray your guesswork is leading you. When you asked questions, it works out better for your knowledge. When you make things up like this, it's the opposite of doing science.

The BB was NOT an explosion from a center point. Also, we don't know that "reality" began at that time. Reality isn't a good word to use in this context, since science is our observations and measurements of the natural world. Reality sort of implies something beyond that, a realness outside what is observed. We can't even say time started with the BB (that this was the "first moment"). It might have started again from a prior iteration.

Please, no. We can talk about this the way the OP intended, the way your first post did. As soon as you make this about you personally, it becomes a medical issue and the thread gets shut down We are unequipped to offer professional advice, you know this. Please don't make this about diagnosing your situation. I was hoping we could discuss the subject without violating the rules. This should be talked about, but without doing unintended harm.

And you learn a lot from the process. ! Moderator Note Thread closed.

Then why don't more suicides burn themselves? I'm just saying it's a poor argument, that the pain is the same. I disagree with your third paragraph.

Probably why I specifically made sure to say: You claimed calling suicide cowardly wasn't right because both the suicide and the accidental death have the same kind of pain. I don't think that's true in most cases. Suicides get to choose how and where, they know it's coming, there are many factors that make it less painful. I just didn't agree with that part of your argument.

If there are many types of mental illness, and mental illness does not discriminate, then why wouldn't some people find ridicule a meaningful method of prevention? I assume, of course, that you would include ridicule in a list of stigmatizing deterrents. And I'm not advocating it for everyone, but I do think some people want to be told their thoughts of suicide are silly and transitory. So I'm loathe to remove that tool from a professional's bag. Can you give examples of ways suicide prevention is being turned into "taunting"? Again, it seems like everyone is different, including what they interpret as callousness and sadism. Are some mental health professionals advocating sadism if they point out how suicide affects survivors? I don't like calling suicide "cowardly", but I also don't agree that these deaths are equally painful as their accidental counterparts. Cutting blood vessels isn't the same as losing an arm, just as dying by GSW isn't the same as a bullet to the head.

Why do you need a method? Why wouldn't physical laws be constant in other parts of the universe? You aren't answering questions, you're just shoveling on more crap.

So tiny virtual reality machines move objects through space exactly the way we can predict various forces do? What are the forces doing? Why would you need a reason why physical laws are the same everywhere, besides the overall makeup of the universe? Why wouldn't the same laws apply in chemistry somewhere else? The laws include being able to accommodate many differing factors. Now you need to re-explain relativity. You've studied relativity, right, at least as well as you studied cosmology? Wouldn't it be great if you were right and all those stupidheads who studied science in school were WRONG, making YOU the leading authority on... well, EVERYTHING?! All that study for nothing, and you just whipped this up out of your head! It must be great to be so intuitive about things others find difficult.

So what? Are you dismissing what we know because it's incomplete? Do you understand what theory really means? May have existed, implying that your either/or dilemma was false. This makes it VERY clear you only have a passing acquaintance with the BBT. It's a shame, too, lots of actual evidence in support, and works well with other theories. You're arguing against something you don't understand.

False dilemma. The universe may have existed prior to the BB. And btw, the Big Bang is NOT a creation theory.

Perhaps we could focus on these, since the rest looks like uninformed, ignorant guesswork that makes sense to you because it's all your brain had to work with. You talk about a "framework for a theory", but you don't even have that. The framework for a theory is a mathematical model. So what are the good reasons to believe your idea has merit? What current problems does it solve, what does it do better than current mainstream theories? Edit to add: At least now I have an inkling of why you mentioned not being a creationist. Ima advise you NOT to go there, EVER.

! Moderator Note Then you're off-topic. This thread is NOT discussing if belief matters or not.

Creationism seems to be a non sequitur here, not sure why you mentioned it. Do you have any science to support your assertions? It's quite common for people who find science daunting to look for "simple" solutions to all that study. What mechanism would space use to move things around? What properties of space would make this possible?

! Moderator Note It's quite clear from the OP that the faith discussed in this thread is from believers in religion. ! Moderator Note FreeWill, this is an example of a strawman, since Moontanman never claimed dimreepr needed protection from religious faith. See the difference?

! Moderator Note No more personal attacks, everyone. You know better. FreeWill, a strawman is a logical fallacy where you're arguing one thing ("We shouldn't start a war in Iran") and the other person counters an argument that wasn't presented ("It's a shame you don't support our troops"). None of the posts you reported are examples of strawman. This is a lengthy thread, and it had parameters once upon a time. It seems now that definitions are becoming a problem. Perhaps it's time to close this and open up more specific lines of discussion? In any case, such discussion will NOT include insults and personal attacks.

"I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions." - Caine

If an idea is like a plant, it grows strong by being subjected to the wind, which tries to blow it over, but instead makes the stalk stronger as the plant compensates. Critique is like the wind (and hopefully not just hot air), making the idea stronger as it's tested from multiple directions.

Science DISCUSSION forum. We sit at an imaginary table and talk about science. We don't jump on top of the table and start shouting everyone down. We don't attack people, we attack ideas to make them stronger or show they're rotten. That's how the methodology works in science. The only real problem here is that you're trying to present your "opinions regarding the mind" (paraphrasing) to people who have studied what mainstream science has observed, and they've found several points where your opinions don't reconcile with what's known. They've pointed those out, but you continue to post your pre-prepared book excerpts without taking any criticism to heart. It seems like you're trying to advertise and ignore critiques, both of which are against our rules, so that may account for the differences in your expectations.

So you aren't here to discuss your idea, you're here to teach it to us, and we're just supposed to agree with you. Not science. It seems like you picked an audience that knows more about this than you do. And instead of sitting at the table discussing it the way we normally do here, you've chosens to stand up on the table and lecture rather than engage in conversation about your idea. You won't learn much that way. These folks are fantastically diverse and well-educated in a broad array of subjects, and most people who come here with an idea are happy for the expert and skilled amateur input. Isn't that why you came to a discussion forum?

! Moderator Note Hamster22, it's clear from posts like this that you have a misinformed perspective on science in general. Science isn't interested in truth, or proof, or even logic. Nothing "confirms" a theory, because theories are supported by evidence rather than proven or confirmed. It's frustrating to those here who understand science that you're "spending your energy" on these misconceptions. Please study some physics and reread some of the excellent replies you've received from professionals and amateurs who are just trying to help. Why did you come to a mainstream science discussion forum if you didn't want to learn? This thread is closed. Please don't bring this up again unless you have evidence to support yourself. Reasonable and rational methodology rigorously applied will help you much more than your made-up "logic".

Why claim faith is trusted? The definition says faith requires nothing trusted. Why do you insist on redefining the words everyone else is using? It certainly makes my further participation meaningless.

Give us an example. I can't imagine one.

That's not what ANY dictionary definition supports. Instead, different words are used to distinguish between different concepts. For instance, faith is NOT built on trust, but rather is defined as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". To equate the two or claim one is built on the other waters down both words. We have two distinct concepts for a good reason. Stop using trust to define faith. They are different approaches to the way we believe in things.

Not me. You admonished FreeWill ("I didn't say that") when he was quoting zapatos, not you. Or did you think he was zapatos?