Universe's Existence

Dammit! Now I've been penised!

[Irreligious]

WickFut wrote

ILoveHulk would have been too gay ?

Eww. Hulk is one fucked-up looking dude. I would hope that most of my fellow gays have better taste than that. That's a mug and body that only a straight guy could love, in that platonic, fraternal way that straight guys have with each other.

Kate wrote

Lice??? I didn't know you could get crabs on your bell-end. That must be one serious infestation.

Economy size bottle of Quellada, methinks.

Maybe it was a typo in extreme excitement while joining this internet forum.

He might be called ILOVEHULK in the I Love Spiderman forums

Wakkun wrote

Lice??? I didn't know you could get crabs on your bell-end. That must be one serious infestation.

Economy size bottle of Quellada, methinks.

That aint lice ?

Looks like some form of fungi , I can't say for definate as mine looks a more greener shade.

[Irreligious]

Testa di minchia (penis head). My absolute favorite Sicilian vulgarity.

WickFut wrote

That aint lice ?

Looks like some form of fungi , I can't say for definate as mine looks a more greener shade.

The image name says lice.

[calpurnpiso]

Irreligious wrote

Testa di minchia (penis head). My absolute favorite Sicilian vulgarity.

It'd be more accurate to say Cinque testii di minchia!
The Grand retards of the Catholic Church under Constantinus I ( ca 330's ce) KNEW the Penis was the creator of the universe using his river of life ( holy milk) as was used by the milk shooting nipples of the sacred life giving goddess venus ( Veneris Genetricis ) mother of god Caesar.

The symbol of Venus and his son Iulius Caesar ( the comet of 44bce had mutated with venus since it appeared near the same quadrant of the sky on July 20th, 44 BCE at the beginning of the funeral games in honor of CAESAR and his Life Giving Mother Venus).
The penis is seldom used whole, only the GLANDS centered by its one all seeing eye, who shoots the milky rays of life. The magic number is 5!!!!
We know the CROSS has always been symbolic of the SUNGOD's life giving rays since the Egyptian religious beliefs created it over 5,000 years ago. Other ancient cultures predating the Egyptian also saw a cross in the Sun rays.

Notice the symbols a top of 99% of the Obelisks ( representing the penis of sungod Amun-ra) in Rome. Here is the one at the Vatican. They are NOT BELLS.



Here are the symbol explained.
1) a BIG DICK ( Obelisk) on top of it..
2) 5 cock nozzles ( glands) #5 was sacred in ancient Rome, on top of it...
3) a STAR/COMET of Venus & Caesar and on top of it..
4) a CROSS representing a TROPAION ( meaning victory, conquest, rays of the sun and where the WAX imago of the sacrificed God Caesar was displayed during his funeral for all to see.

The EVIDENCE of this can be seen by ALL at the museums throughout the VAST ancient Roman world , if one knows the symbolism and where to look.

Notice the many TIT NOZZLES that can be compared to DICKHEAD nozzles. Both shoot the River of Life. ( semen/milk)


Conclusion. Five Dickheads shooting their wad into a cunt to bring retarded children into the world. This is what the Giant DICK at the Vatican stands for!!...and yes Pedophilia in Christianity is de RIGEUR. Notice the putti ( cupids sons of venus) in ALL Christian paintings and sculptures. Jesus PIPI was sacred and was KISSED in reverence in ancient times as was the TIT of his mother Mary. AHHH Bless us lord with your Semen/titie Milk.

Penrose, you say? Well, let's see, I've got my copy of The Road to Reality around here somewhere, let me check...

Ah! here we are, on page 762 (§28.7), Penrose talks about the big bang:

"Let us return to the extraordinary degree of precision (or 'fine-tuning') that seems to be required for a Big Bang of the nature that we appear to observe. As was argued in §27.13, the required precision, in phase-space-volume terms, is one part in 10^10^123 at least. The exponent '10^123' comes from the entropy of a black hole of mass equal to that in the observable universe."

But what does that mean? Well, Mr Penrose of course is kind enough to expound, over on page 764 (§28.7):

"To see how impotent the anthropic argument is, in this context, consider the following facts. Life on Earth certainly does not directly need the microwave background radiation. In fact, we do not even need Darwinian evolution! It would have been far 'cheaper' in terms of 'probabilities' to have produced sentient life from the random coming together of gas and radiation. (One can estimate that the entire solar system, including its living inhabitants, could be created from the random collision of particles and radiation with a probability of one part in 10^10^60 (or probably a good deal less than 10^10^60). The figure 10^10^60 is utter 'chicken feed' by comparison with the 10^10^123 needed for the Big Bang of the observable universe. We do not need a Big Bang to be in its observed uniform configuration. We do not need the Second Law at times earlier than life was around. It would be far 'cheaper' for the Creator not to be bothered with that."

[Sternwallow]

Kate wrote

This circus stuff is not as easy as it looked from the ground!

[Sternwallow]

YHWH wrote

Atheists are clueless when it comes to the beginning of space and time. They have no clue if God made it all possible.. They have no clue if it happened by some sheer chaotic event.. They have no clue if the universe is eternal, or was it created or formed? The best answer you will receive by an atheist is something like.. "God didn't do it."

The endless Atheist Vs. Christian debate;

Atheist - "God doesn't exist"
Christian - "Yes he does"
Atheist - "No he doesn't"
Christian - "Yes he does"

It might be a debate if you correctly quoted that atheist side.
Atheist - "There is no evidence for any god therefore no reason to believe in one"
Christian - "The evidence is in the Bible"
Atheist - "Which one and why that one and what reason is there to believe it is true?"
Christian - "The right one is mine and you only need faith to believe it"
Atheist - "I have a rabbit and I have unshakable faith that it is a male so it must be male, right?"
Christian - "Only through faith can we know the really important truths."
Atheist - "Through faith in untrue things, we can become completely deluded."
Christian - "True faith cannot lead to falsity"
Atheist - "So, if you find out that you had faith in something that turned out to be false, it simply was not true faith to begin with, right?"
Christian - "We cannot test faith because it does not depend on (or tolerate) evidence. So faith cannot fail to be true faith in true things."
Atheist _ "So, to acquire faith all we must do is believe and faith will come automatically. First we must have faith that belief will bring faith. This process seems screwy, squirrelly and self-deluding."
Christian - <more goat droppings>...

[Sternwallow]

YHWH wrote

Evidence of an Intelligent Almighty Being;


Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 … … … … … 00001
If I were to write this number out, as 0.0000 0000 …, with all of its zeros, we would need a computer hard-drive much larger than the size of our entire universe, just to hold all of the zeros that I would have to write out.

So you ask, what does all this mean?

It means that it is reasonable to conclude that our universe did not get here by accident. The epistemic-probability is far too low for the universe to have arisen by random chance. The evidence (observation of extremely-low epistemic-probability) points to an Intelligent Designer (God) having designed, created and fine-tuned the universe.

The probability of this universe existing is exactly 1.00000...

Your epistemic probability cannot be calculated because there is no population to sample even in principle. You do not know whether the universe ever did not exist in some form and you do not know the probability that nothing, being unstable, will decompose into something.

There is observational evidence that the net energy in the universe is zero. If so, then it would require only a very tiny force, if any at all, to bring it into existence. Your creator god may be no more potent than a butterfly's fart.

[Sternwallow]

YHWH wrote

Once again I see you have absolutely skipped over my entire post. If you knew how to read you would see I just explained the universe was created by an intelligent force.


FYI: No one says "Dolt" anymore.
This is 2008 not 1993

Gee, I coulda[sic] swarn[sic] that a respected member of this forum just said "dolt" and I think he really meant it.

[Sternwallow]

YHWH wrote

No I did not pull that "Number from my hat", It's called Science!


As you may know, in mathematics, probabilities of less than one part in 10^30 to 10^50 are typically written off as being zero. And 10^30 is 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, i.e., 1 followed by 30 zeros; 10^50 is 1 followed by 50 zeros.

Penrose's calculated probability was one part in 10^(10^30), which is 1 followed by 10^30 zeros. And 10>30 is itself 1 followed by 30 zeros. So, the probability works out to be one part in 10^(100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000), i.e., 10 raised to the power of 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, or 1 followed by a thousand billion billion billion zeros (i.e., 1 followed by a nonillion zeros).

Do you think this all happened by some sheer random chaotic event?

Yes, I think that Penrose picked an unsubstantiated number by random chaotic choice. Further, I have never seen your notion that probabilities smaller than 1/10^30 were considered equal to zero. It just isn't true.

If you are talking about the limits of computer precision, we do tolerate some information loss in the thirtieth decimal place and beyond (on modern machines, that is, in the 128th bit place), but we do not equate it with zero. When we work with even smaller numbers, software takes over in what are called arbitrary precision math functions. Again, exponential notation prevents us from overflowing the universe, just as you easily reprented your fictitious probability as "1/10^(10^30)".