April 14, 2006

JOKE TIME


One day two clergymen, a priest and a rabbi, are playing a round of golf. On the first hole the rabbi hits the ball into a sand trap. "Shit, I missed!" says the rabbi.

The priest says, "You shouldn't use such language, you'll incite the Lord's wrath."

"Yeah whatever," the rabbi replies. After retrieving his ball the rabbi swings again and hits the ball into the woods. "God damnit, I missed!" he exclaims.

The priest says, "Don't say that, for it is a sin to take the Lord's name in vain."

"Right, sure," says the rabbi. After playing through the rabbi takes one more swing and hits the ball into the pond. "Fuck it, I missed!" he says.

All of a sudden the skies darken with stormclouds. A lightning bolt flashes from the heavens and strikes the priest, electrocuting him instantly.

A big booming voice in the sky rings out, "Shit I missed!"


Thanks to Silentknight who posted this joke in the Raving Atheist Forum.

If anyone has a sinister religious themed joke, feel free to post it as a comment to this post.

39 comments:

  1. One day, God sitting on his throne, with all the prophets worshipping him. God had his feet dangling and accidentaly his slipper fell on Earth in Sweden. God asked his prophets who'd like to retrieve it for me? no one answered except Muhammed going "Me ME Me!!!" God asked again no one but Muhammed. He asked again no one but Muhammed. So Jesus Christ asked god "why don't you pick Muhammed?". God Replied "Last time I sent him to Saudi and he shagged 12 women.. No way I'm sending him to Sweden"..

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Religion has killed many more people than sex has. I think we should give tax exemptions to prostitutes and pass out little rubber things to put in your ears in case you get too close to a church!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh man... you know what this means, don't you? God is fallible!!!

    The world as we know it will end. :)

    I have a great joke about the cruicifixion that I'd be happy to share with you the upcoming Easter Sunday, unless you think that would be wildly inappropriate. Oh well, here goes:

    Jesus is on the cross and he is surrounded by throngs of people. He calls out for Paul. "Paul! Paul! Please, come to me!" Stuck at the back of the crowd, Paul is having a very difficult time fighting the crowd to get close enough. "Please, Paul! I must speak with you," Jesus calls out in agony. Paul keeps stumbling through the people, and by the grace of God finally makes it to Jesus' feet, his robes torn, his face scratched and filthy from almost being trampled to death.

    "Yes, my Lord! I have made it! What is it you must tell me?"

    "I can see your house from here!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. A priest and a rabbi are standing on a street corner one day. When a young boy walks by.
    The priest turns to the radii and says, “Lets take him outback and fuck him.”
    The rabbi turns to the priest and asks, “out of what?”

    ReplyDelete
  5. Four nuns die in a car accident and are at the pearly gates waiting to be admitted to heaven. St. Peter asks the first nun to step forward and asks her, "You took a vow of celibacy. I must ask you, have you ever come into contact in any way with a man's penis?"
    The nun shyly admits to 'playing doctor' as a child and touching a boy's penis with her finger.
    St. Peter says, "Dip your finger in the holy water and pass through the gates."
    The next nun is asked the same question and admits to stroking her boyfriend's penis, prior to taking her vows, but had never come into contact with one since.
    St. Peter says, "Dip your hand in the holy water and pass through the gates."
    At this point, the fourth nun in line elbows the third nun out of the way and stands before St. Peter. St. Peter asks her, "Sister, why must you force your way to the front of the line?"
    The nun snaps back, "Look, if I'm going to have to gargle that stuff, I'm sure as hell not doing it after Mary Margaret here sits in it!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. There were 3 missionaries; a Catholic, a Buddhist and a Jew who were out in the middle of Africa and they were caught by head-hunters. The Chief came up and said "Afternoon gentlemen you have your options... Death or you can meet the Aristocrats".

    First is the Jewish Rabbi. The Chief says, "Have you made up your mind?" The Rabbi responds, "Oh absolutely. Perhaps there's an afterlife. I'm not really sure about that, but we certainly value the life on earth. I have decided I will go with meeting the Aristocrats."

    Out come about 14 men wearing the skimpiest little loin cloths and they reem him in every orifice, they throw his body up, they throw his body down. He is completely covered in aboriginine spermatazoa, and they leave him basically as a floppy little rag doll over in the bushes.

    The Chief goes up to the Catholic Priest and says "How about you?" The Priest says "As horrible as that is, I'm no stranger to certain aspects of it. I do see over there that the man is still breathing, which means I would stay alive to be able help my fellow parishioners. I will take... I guess, the Aristocrats." And it's same song second verse, they have him in so many ways that he has never even dreamt of. He is left lying, panting barely audible breaths, writhing in the underbrush.

    The Buddhist says, "I believe we are only here for a short time anyway. I will take death." The Chief says "OK fine, death it is. But first, The Aristocrats!!"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Once there was a Christian, an atheist, and a Jew.

    The atheist and the Jew burned in hell!

    hahahahahaha!!!!

    LOL! funny enough 4 ya?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The most fundemental belief of the Christian faith is the existence
    of God. Most people would say that it's impossible to "prove" the
    existence of God and that therefore, if one is going to believe in
    God, he must "take it by faith" that God exists. I've heard many
    people say this as an excuse for not believing in God. "Nobody can
    prove that God exists and nobody can prove that that he dosen't, so I
    just don't believe in him". Such a blithe attitude fails to
    appreciate the depth of man's existential predicament in a universe
    without God. The rational man ought to believe in God even when the
    evidence is equally balanced, rather than reverse.

    But is it the case that there is no probatory evidence that a
    Supreme Being exists? I think that there are good reasons for
    believing that God exists.

    Now before I continue, let me try to diffuse an emotional time bomb
    that may be ticking in some of your minds. There are two things I
    would like to make clear:

    (1) I'm not claiming that I can prove God exists. All I'm saying is
    that the evidence makes it more proable than not that the universe
    began to exist and that to the extent that this is proable, it is
    also proable that God exists.

    (2) The issues I'm raising are primarily philosophical in nature,
    not scientific. I'm not proposing some sort of creation science
    whereby God becomes a part of a scientific theory. I'm just saying
    that scientific evidence shows that the universe had a beginning. Any
    further questions are philosophical, not scientific, in character. As
    scientists we can refuse to ask such questions, but surely as human
    beings seeking to find meaning to life and the universe we can
    legitimately pose such philosophical questions.

    Everything in the universe has a cause, and those causes have
    causes, and so on. But this can't go back forever. There had to be a
    beginning which started the whole thing.

    On one occasion I was talking to an atheist friend of mine who
    asked, "If God created the universe, then where did God come from?" I
    replied, "God didn't come from anywhere. He is eternal and has always
    existed. So He doesn't need a cause. But let me ask you something.
    The universe has not always existed but had a beginning. So where did
    the universe come from?"

    According to the Big Bang theory the universe began to exist with a
    great explosion from a state of infinite density about 15 billion
    years ago. The staggering implication of this is at that point the
    entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical
    point, from which it has been expanding ever since. This initial
    event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes more amazing
    when one reflects on the fact that it implies the orgin of the
    universe out of nothing. At this singularity, space and time came
    into existence; if the Universe originated in such a singularity, we
    would truly have a creation ex nihilo.

    Both philosophical reasoning and scientific evidence show that the
    universe began to exist. Anything that begins to exist must have a
    cause that brings it into being. So the universe must have a cause.

    This is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could
    sincerely believe it to be false. The old axiom that "out of nothing,
    nothing comes" remains as obvious today as ever.

    But an attractive feature of this argument, that allows the atheist
    a way of escape, is that one could assert that the universe sprang
    into existence uncaused out of nothing. I would think that few would
    take this option since I believe they would thereby expose themselves
    as persons interested only in academic refutation of the argument and
    not in really discorving the truth about the universe. Surprisingly
    though atheists seem to take this route often.

    But is it plausible to think that anything in the natural universe
    could really come into being without a cause. Just because I can
    imagine an object, say a horse, coming into existence from nothing,
    that no way proves that a horse could really come into existence that
    way. Does anyone sincerly believe that in the natural order of the
    universe things can pop into existence uncaused from nothing? If
    prior to the existence of the universe, there was absolutely nothing-
    no God, no space, no time- how could the universe possibly have come
    to exist?

    Amazing as it may seem, to me the most plausible answer to the
    question of why something exists rather than nothing is that God
    exists. That means, in turn, that the first and most fundamental
    condition for meaning to life and the universe is supplied.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --Puddn'head Wilson(Mark Twain character).

    "Pray, n. to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."

    --Ambrose Bierce in his "Devil's Dictionary" which can be found online.

    ReplyDelete
  10. GS, shaking my head. Poor kids.

    Anon, you don't get off so easy "God didn't come from anywhere. He is eternal and has always
    existed. So He doesn't need a cause."
    Why believe in some magical eternal being that has shown no evidence of having anything to do with the universe for over 13 billion years?
    Just because science hasn't explained it YET, doesn't mean Godidit by default.
    I can't prove 1 God exists just like I can't prove 500 Gods don't exist. But there is absolutely no proof of God. And your argument is intellectually dishonest. How can you except God has been around forever without needing a beginning of time, yet you demand one for a physical universe.
    There are some theories out there regarding matter, and the beginning, and they don't need a God to make them work.
    If your God exists, where has he been for 13 billion years?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon.. Your argument is philosophically passable. So in order to argue with you I must become philosophical. The question remains, never in the universe have something unphysical influence something physical. even the "soul" which is if you believe in God, something unphysical can't influence the brain of a human which is physical. Thus by logic "soul" cannot exist, perhaps only in James Brown but thats something else. What exists is chemical and electrical actions and reactions in our brains. "Spirituality" is basically how much chocolate you eat. if we apply the same logic to Big Bang and it's alleged creator "God" so you are taking by default out of many possible causes and you had to pick that one. If indeed a "Force" created the big bang, than that falls under Socrates difination of God as being "Unmoved Mover" and as Socrates claimed that he just started the movement and excluded himself from the world of man. The Unmoved Mover is not influential in our lives. Now if you wanna worship that "Force". that is quite illogical but then again, God is illogical himself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. We know from the second law of thermodynamics that the entire
    universe is running down. What that means is that the
    universe had a beginning, for you cannot get something from nothing.
    The universe could not have created itself, because to do so it
    would have had to exist in the first place! We also know that all
    finite things are contingent on some cause. But you cannot find a
    cause for a cause for a cause... and so on into eternity, there has
    to be an uncaused cause. That infinite, uncaused cause is God.

    The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is
    more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause
    the "chain of causes," in the beginning, He must still be causing
    things to exist right now. Once again we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of own - that once something is created existence is just part of what it is - this is not the case.
    Consider a simple example - a triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points
    not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is
    not part of this definition: existence. This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore a triangle's nature - what it is - does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns - we know what they are but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something that else that already exists (such as myself drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also do not exist simply because of what I am - so I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe - does any of it it exist on its own? No.

    So, not only did the universe had to have a first cause to get
    started, it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that
    exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always
    exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite, . . . sound familiar? It should!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon, you are thick. It is possible that the laws of physics didn't exist at one time prior to the beginning of the universe, perhaps there are even more universes than one, string theory doesn't need God, But you are inventing God as a default. It is unnecessry. There is no need for God.
    God hasn't been in hiding for over 13 billion years.
    There is no God.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In your kitchen cabinet, you've probably got a spray bottle with an adjustable nozzle. If you twist the nozzle one way, it sprays a fine mist into the air. You twist the nozzle the other way, it squirts a jet of water
    in a straight line. You turn that nozzle to the exact position you want so you can wash a mirror, clean up a spill, or whatever.

    If the universe had expanded a little faster, the matter would have sprayed out into space like fine mist from a water bottle - so fast that a gazillion particles of dust would speed into infinity and never even form a single star.

    If the universe had expanded just a little slower, the material would have dribbled out like big drops of water, then collapsed back where it came from by the force of gravity.

    A little too fast, and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole
    universe collapses back into one big black hole.

    The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and too slow, the force, something that physicists call
    "the Dark Energy Term" had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros.

    If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would look like this:

    0.000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000
    0000000000000000000000000000001

    In their paper "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" two atheist scientists
    from Stanford University stated that the existence of this dark energy term "Would have required a miracle... An external agent, external to space and time, intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own."

    Just for comparison, the best human engineering example is the Gravity Wave Telescope, which was built with a precision of 23 zeros. The Designer, the 'external
    agent' that caused our universe must possess an intellect, knowledge, creativity and power trillions and trillions of times greater than we humans have.

    Absolutely amazing.

    Now a person who doesn't believe in God has to find some way to explain this. One of the more common explanations seems to be "There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them."

    The "infinite universes" theory is truly an amazing theory. Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible... It's actually happened!

    It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There's a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn't get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes
    President of the United States. There's even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine
    the possiblities!

    I might sound like I'm joking, but actually I'm dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

    Some people believe in God with a capital G.

    And some folks believe in Chance with a Capital C.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You proved zero. There is no God. There is no proof that God exists or existed. You take the old age Fundy approach, if it can't be proved by science (yet) it must be God.

    Sorry, but no.

    Where has he been the last 13 billion years?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bet the rabbi got all the oil as well

    ReplyDelete
  17. Some people believe in God with a capital G.

    And some folks believe in Chance with a Capital C.

    - Anonymous

    There they go again. I must have written it a million times. It’s replication, mutation and selection – the core principles of creation.

    As soon as I see someone going on about chance I realize that they have not grasped the fundamentals of evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon.

    Yet again your asserting "God" in the holes of Science to explain. Probablity is what makes up this entire existance. You must have read "Hitchhiker's Guide" By Douglas Adams. You're basically calling that number God, I'll call it Probability. You'll Call it YHVH or Jesus or Allah, I call it Nature in work. You basically cannot assert God in holes. God does not exist in holes. Here is my question to you Anon, If someday Science proves beyond a "reasonable" (not unreasonable) doubt that universe and existance was made by some other element than God, Would you be one of it's first believers? Or are you gonna stick to your Divine?

    ReplyDelete
  19. GLO said..
    ..Your argument is philosophically passable. So in order to argue with you I must become philosophical. The question remains, never in the universe have something unphysical influence something physical. even the "soul" which is if you believe in God, something unphysical can't influence the brain of a human which is physical..

    >GLO, por favor, develope that statement a little more regards to the use
    "philosophically"?

    for instance: is the empty space between sub-atomic particles or the empty space in 'outer space' compatible with something physical, "philosophically" ?
    *
    1) Mathematics. A set of elements or points satisfying specified geometric postulates: non-Euclidean space.

    2)The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists.

    3) The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe.
    The region of this expanse beyond Earth's atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am attracted to an expanding – retracting Universe scenario myself. The Big Bang destroyed all evidence of the time before the event and one theory is that all matter was compressed down to a tiny speck when the Universe retracted. The Universe will not continue to expand forever and at some stage will slow, come to a halt and then collapse.

    This fits well with the possibility of Eternal Recurrence.

    This life you live now you will have to live again and again for all eternity. For given enough time (eternity should be long enough) the same set of events will recur to bring you back again. Making it here once means that it is possible you will, in a sense, appear here again.

    Fortunately for me I am really happy about this possibility, as I would choose to live my life again in an instant if given the chance. Yet, surprisingly, a lot of people find the idea repellent – sad people I think.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rubin, I honestly didn't get what you said, but that's exactly why my major is English Literature and a minor in Philosophy. Not Maths.

    Angloamerican, isn't that bit like what would Tom Cruise say?

    ReplyDelete
  22. We know from the second law of thermodynamics that the entire
    universe is running down. What that means is that the
    universe had a beginning, for you cannot get something from nothing.

    From anon above

    An increase in entropy is not equivalent to "running down" and the other assertions "What that means is that the
    universe had a beginning, for you cannot get something from nothing." Simply have nothing to do with that law


    "the entropy of any totally isolated system not at thermal equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."[1]

    and ironically, it is this very law that the majority of Fundies refute. Just look a few posts down.

    The fact that you accept it as true, and try to build it into your case for God's existence, is unique to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "A little too fast, and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole
    universe collapses back into one big black hole."

    also from anon above

    You assume that a miraculous probability of expansion velocity has been achieved and thus God must exist...

    Geee....where did you do THAT research?

    We do not know with any certainty at all IF the universe is forever expanding or IF it will collapse....your whole argument is unfounded conjecture

    ReplyDelete
  24. An atheist was walking alone through a thick forest, admiring all the nature that had evolved of the millennia, when suddenly he heard a noise behind him. Turning to look, he saw a huge black bear towering over him. Heart thumping, he realised that ready or not, his life was about to come to an abrupt and rather unpleasant end.

    As the bear roared and raised both front paws in the air, ready to strike, the atheist fell to his knees and screamed, "Oh my God!"

    Time immediately stood still. The bear was silent and froze as a statue, birds and insects stopped in mid-flight, nothing moved - except for the pounding of the atheist's heart. A bright light appeared in the sky and God's voice boomed down: "You have not believed in me all your life, yet now you cry out my name for help. In your final moments, do you now believe I exist?"

    The atheist lowered his head and admitted, "God, you are right. I am a sinner. It would be wrong of me to beg for forgiveness at this time.

    "I am a loving God" replied the voice, "but if you don't want my help, well, it's entirely up to you."

    The atheist thought for a while. "Perhaps you could make the bear a Christian?" he asked. "So be it!" said God.

    Movement and sound resumed. The bear gently lowered its paws, bowed its head in prayer and said in a soft, reverent voice:

    "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Late one night, a burglar breaks into a house. He tiptoes through the living room but suddenly freezes in his tracks when he hears a loud voice shrieking: "Jesus is watching you!"

    Silence returns to the house, so the burglar creeps forward again. "Jesus is watching you!" the voice booms and the burglar again stops dead in his tracks. Frightened, he switches on his torch and looks all around the room. And there, over in a dark corner, he sees a parrot sitting on a perch. "Jesus is watching you!" says the parrot.

    "Phew!" sighs the burglar, "That's a relief; I thought my conscience was working overtime! Who's a clever parrot then? What's you name?

    "Bernard." replies the bird.

    "Bernard? That's a stupid name for a parrot." sneers the burglar.

    "Yes," replies the parrot, "and Jesus is a stupid name of a Rottweiler!"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Angloamerican, isn't that bit like what would Tom Cruise say? - GLO

    I’m not sure. Do you mean it’s a bit Scientology sounding or Tom Cruise wouldn’t mind living his life again and again?

    I like to throw Eternal Recurrence into discussions now and again. I think a lot of people fear non-existence so much that they turn to theism yet ER offers the possibility of an atheistic immortality.

    As a way of living it means that you should spend every day not living it as if it is your last but rather in a calm, kind and dignified way enjoying the pleasures of life. If living a life over invokes fear then wouldn’t it be a good idea to strive to ensure that you don’t think this way about the few years left ahead after they have passed?

    As for the second law of thermodynamics it does appear to be counter intuitive. All around us we see things becoming more and more complex as time advances. I think I read somewhere that the ‘laws’ don’t apply a split second after the Big Bang too. It seems to be current thinking that the Universe is expanding and that the rate of expansion is slowing due to the overall gravitational pull of all matter. Eventually it will stop altogether and we will all have to live our lives backwards as it starts moving the other way and reversing itself. Well, that last bit may be a little far fetched.

    Anonymous

    I am a bit uneasy about shooting peoples arguments down merely because they might be based on unfounded conjecture. Where's the fun in that? Maybe we can propose amusing possibilities based on unfounded conjecture? Anyway, last I heard the Big Bang was still current thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What would Tom Cruise say?

    http://www.scientomogy.com/southpark_scientology.php

    ReplyDelete
  28. "All around us we see things becoming more and more complex as time advances."
    From A.A.

    That's true, but it still satisfies the 2nd law because of the all important frame of reference...the "totally isolated system" as stated in the law. If our reference is the solar system, the sun's increase in entropy alone is enough to power "pools" of increased complexity here on earth, since only a very small fraction of the sun's output reaches the earth. Overall our system is increasing in entropy as the sun slowly dies.......what happens on earth, is by comparison, insignificant.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon: Of all the objections that come to mind, let me first say that I wish at least some of you guys would get off that half-baked understanding of thermodynamics that some other religious axe-grinder fed you.

    Next: What is the Universe? While the theoretical term "multi-dimensional Universe" is acceptable, the term "multiple Universes" shows a distinct lack of understanding. There is one. It is a theoretical construct that stands for "everything". It is quite probably more than the astrophysical collection of galaxies that we can observe marching through relative time in our telescopes. You insist that we must know all that there is to know about it, or accept you God as some kind of kluge for what we do not understand.

    Science does not "know" everything. If it did, we could stop doing it and go to the beach or something. We do not know if that which we have observed is the sum total of the universal energy matrix, and therefore the boundaries of a closed system.

    Here's an un-provable explanation that does not require a god (short version):

    According to some of Einstein's equations, space is curved. I leave it to the reader to ponder the ramifications of that. When the matter and energy that occupy the continuum known as space reaches the limit of its expansion, it starts to collapse. the process accelerates as gravity wells increase in size. The end result is a hypermass. when the last free electron joins the hypermass, the continuum itself collapses because, outside the hypermass, it is now truly nothing. What remains is a hypermass with no space in which to have a locus. BOOM! it all starts over again. Or not. Who knows? My point is, I don't need your god in that model. For that matter, why your god and not Cthulhu? ...for the same reason we fret about dolphins in the tuna nets and not the tuna?

    As for your probability report, as a noted gambler once said, "The odds don't mean shit when the dice stop rolling." In more genteel fashion, long odds are not the same as no odds, as any winner of the lottery can tell you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Three Holy Rollers of *insert-denomination(s)-here* were playing golf one day, and one asks another,

    "Reverend, how do you decide what to do with the collection money?"

    The second reverend replies, "I draw a circle on the ground, and stand in the middle. I throw the collection up in the air, and whatever falls inside the circle, I keep for myself. What falls outside the circle, I give to the Lord."

    The first one says, "I do much the same, except I give what falls inside the circle to the Lord for His Work, and keep for myself what falls outside." Turning to the third man, he says, "What do you do Jimmy?"

    Jimmy says, "Well, I don't mess with circles. I throw the money in the air, and I figure the Lord will take what he wants and what falls to the ground is mine."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Um, no. That has been bandied about, but by definition, it is an oxymoron. Think of it this way: multiple discrete totalities preclude any single one of same from being the totality. Or in the vernacular, even if ya can't git there from here, it's all gotta be part of the Universe.

    Or, if you prefer, from the article cited:

    "It's not a testable idea," says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, "You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist." When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. "In my view, you're into metaphysics."

    ReplyDelete
  32. I like my way better. Sort of like the land of Oz, that grows by 3 square feet every time someone new arrives (I think it was 3).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lion,

    The multiverse is an oxymoron? You're just playing semantic games. Perhaps our original attribtion of the term 'universe' to our particular bubble of reality was incorrect?

    That quote by Paul Steinhardt was correct; the idea is untestable and there is no evidence they exist, YET (and perhaps will remain untestable for a great deal of time, or forever). It is merely a hypothesis at this stage, but there are many reasons to suspect that this hypothesis may be true.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I've been accused of playing semantic games many times. To me, it makes a difference. There is a subtle shift in one's point of view that affects judgment and conclusions. Yes, I understand what others mean when they talk about multiple universes, but it grates in much the same way as when someone says "very unique". It implies an imperfect understanding of the meaning of the word.

    When most people are asked, "What is the Universe?" they proceed to describe the cosmos. I grant you it's a very big chunk. The third atom from the left in the protein chain that is part of a cell membrane in one of your skin cells is also integral to the Universe because the Universe would not be complete without it. "Universe" is not a place; it is a concept that potentially transcends our ability to detect and measure its limits.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Crap.. I should've paid more attention is science classes instead smoking blunts outside. Then again I'll leave science to those who know it. I'll stick to philosophy and busting the other guy's balls..

    But here's my question that I get asked alot by many. if we trace back everything in existence would it lead to a single point in time and space and should that point be called God?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "In their paper "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" two atheist scientists
    from Stanford University stated that the existence of this dark energy term "Would have required a miracle... An external agent, external to space and time, intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own."

    from anon above

    This paper merely challenges the notion of a Cosmological constant, which Einstein invented on his own to try to describe a stable universe. Einstein later called his cosmological constant "the biggest blunder of his life". The publication is NOT a god commercial.

    Also how is it that Fundies always SEEM to know which scientists are atheists and which are not?...and always make a big deal of stating that "affiliation". I have been a professional biologist since 1993, and not once has a colleague introduced himself, or in any way designated himself, by his belief system.

    I think Fundies try to propagate a lie..... that the creation/evolution debate is a hot topic in scientific circles with top scientists "turning to God" on a daily basis, after facing the "growing evidence" for creation. I assure you it is a DEAD topic, and there is NO debate.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Lion, I appreciate your definition of universe, but you shouldn't impose your definition on others. When I mention the possibility of multiple universes, I mention the idea that many other expanding spaces could have started out just like the one that has our earth in it. Regardless if it is provable or not at this time or ever, it is scientifically plausible at this time and it doesn't require a God or multiple Gods.

    GLO, I'm with you, I'm no scientist although I'm trying to learn. My goal NOW is to educate, in a humorous way, the young people who are being poisoned by their parents and their religious leaders with bad science and out and out falsities. The other reason I'm doing this blog is to entertain the non believers out there.

    Anon, Fundies grasp at straws and look for any argument by scientists amongst themselves in order to try to prove the Invisible Pixie Fairy in the Sky exists.
    Gaps in evolution for instance either means that evolution is false to a Fundy or progressive Fundies state it means God exists.

    ReplyDelete