ydoaPs

Then any god is forever outside of reason and making shit up is not an acceptable substitute for science. <philosopher hat> Indeed </philosopher hat>

Seems like more trouble than simply using a pan.

Is it a sin to be rich? "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."-Matthew 19:16-24 The word for "rich" in verse 24 is "πλούσιος" which most certainly does not mean "greedy", in case you were wondering. The same word shows up in Luke 6 when Jesus says "But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation".

Oh? Let's look: 2 מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהֹורָ֗ה תִּֽקַּח־לְךָ֛ שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּ֑ו וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹ֣א טְהֹרָ֥ה הִ֛וא שְׁנַ֖יִם אִ֥ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּֽו׃ 3 גַּ֣ם מֵעֹ֧וף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה לְחַיֹּ֥ות זֶ֖רַע עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ 4 כִּי֩ לְיָמִ֨ים עֹ֜וד שִׁבְעָ֗ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ מַמְטִ֣יר עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים יֹ֔ום וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָ֑יְלָה וּמָחִ֗יתִי אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְקוּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה Throughout all of chapter 7, it keeps using הארץ instead of ארץ. I'll have to call in mooeypoo on this one.

Not that religious people are broken, but here is a playlist on YouTube of short videos discussing some of the MANY MANY ways our psychology make humans in general irrational and susceptible to religious belief.

the tastiest infographic ever

It is meaningless. There's no such thing as "before" time, just as there's no "north" of the North Pole. Having a beginning and being eternal are not mutually exclusive.

Relevant:

It's true by definition. Time is just a separation of states. You can't be separated from all separation. It's like asking the difference between a duck. "Before" time is meaningless garbage.

Everything is easier when you assume your conclusion.

There was no time at which the universe did not exist. "Before the universe" is meaningless.

I want my six minutes back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HoaFWI5S0Q

Our understanding of space and time have come a LONG way since Kant. You know, B-Theory, Relativity, and whatnot.

Time and space are very similar things. So much so, in fact, that we treat them the same mathematically. But what are they? They are separations. Distance is the separation between objects within a state, and duration is the separation between states. The magnitude of both separations are relative and depend on the energy distribution within the reference frame of the observer. How can one be outside of all separations. You cannot separate yourself without being separated. To speak of "outside" of the universe is to be unintelligible.

I was under the impression that [math]\frac{1}{0}[/math] yielded complex infinity.

Is there a possible solution where there's a slight curvature and the universe is so big that the curvature ends up being a CTC?

The typical answers for the shape of the universe are positive curvature, flat, and negative curvature. Is it possible that the curvature could be such that the entire universe is one closed timelike curve? One such that the Big Bang is caused by the Big Crunch? I'm not talking about a cylical model, but one where the end event and the beginning event are in fact the same event. What would we need to look for to falsify this idea?

You keep using that phrase "open minded". I do not think it means what you think it means.

From what I gather, no one really knows aside from the rider balancing. There have been bikes built that cancel the gyro effect and they still work. Some people thought it was because the front wheel moves, so it's hardly ever in a true straight line with the back. Then they made a bake with a stationary front wheel that still worked.

I was unaware that porn was detrimental to society.

I am a bot that Cap'n Refsmmat wrote; there is no real me.

The only sense in which it has a beginning is trivial. The universe has always existed and will always exist. There is no time at which the universe did not exist. The only sense in which the universe "began to exist" is one that there is no time prior to the Big Bang at which the universe existed. This also applies to God. So, if the universe began to exist, so did God. Also, if the universe is all of space and time, to speak of an "outside" the universe is contradictory meaningless babble.

Ah, yes. We all seem to have forgotten about the tutorials.

I only really watch three programs: Doctor Who, How I Met Your Mother, and Sherlock.