You have bought the propaganda of the religious right that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.
Hehe, I see what you are saying.
And I agree with what the American Religious Right is saying. Not because of their propaganda, but because of the way the US bill of rights has been written.
Semantics can be a pretty powerful weapon. And the American Religious Right seem to be able to use semantics pretty well.
You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
"The impossible is just a statement relative to the current state of knowledge as I have showed you time and time again, In relation to the now violated law of conservation of mass."
-So, then, you must agree that it is possible 2+2=17.3, water can freeze at 10,000 C and that you have a tribe a dwarfs under your thumb nail. Because humans have been wrong about things is not a reason to think that laws necessary for thought are invalid.
So, then, you must agree that it is possible 2+2=17.3, water can freeze at 10,000 C
So you think that the freezing temp of water is always the same?
Did I say that? So you think water can freeze at 10,000 degrees? And what about 2+2? Can that possibly equal -51.7?
That is a stupid retort, Waters phase diagram is actually quite complex as waters phase relationships between pressure and temp are complex. But other more simple liquids do display such dynamic changes in phase change points over large temp spans.
You're right, that is a stupid retort. I would think someone who argues the very bad idea that science has primacy over epistemology should know better than basic physics. It is stupid to think that there is a pressure or pressure gradient that can take liquid H20 to a solid state at 10,000 degrees. At 10,000 degrees there is no water. There is only hydrogen and oxygen plasma. No gas (well maybe gas with a huge pressure gradient, but not water vapor). No liquid. No solid. 10,000 degree ice, that's funny. Ice. Actual ice at 10,000 degrees. Ridiculous.
You continue to dodge the very simple, non-strawman, logical implications of your rampant irrational skepticism. Either you admit that 2+2 can equal -312.9 or you admit that we can have certain knowledge.
Not everything is possible. If you wish to have a more accurate, honest, objective and non-contradictory understanding of the world, then you must admit this.
"However, MCT has already established that he has no respect many discoveries of science since they violate his interpretation of the universe."
-Creation is not a scientific discovery. I have no respect for any theory that violates the primacy of existence, identity, causality and noncontradiction.
1. Aristotle could say "pigs fly", wouldn't make it true or possible. Time before time, is impossible. You need existence and matter for time. A universal state of nothingness giving birth magically to existence is not scientific. It is fantasy.
2. To venture anywhere, even past what people thought was possible, one needs the law of identity which forbids creation. To discover something new a thing must be itself and nothing else, or you would not be able to identify it. Venturing past was actually is impossible is crazy talk.
3. There is no advanced technology that I am disputing, only a complete denial of the foundations of knowledge building.
the primacy of existence
Is almost pure Ayn Rand. Your dogma is showing.
For the record, there is nothing about the universe having a beginning which invalidates the fact of its existence. I still don't understand how you can insist that the repeatable and testable evidence that the universe had a beginning is wrong.
It is not dogma. If it was dagma, I would believe in freewill like she did and wrote. She happens to be right about the primacy of existence and I applaud her for her for it. That someone else is right about something and I agree is not dogma. What is showing is your emotional discontent, not my dogma, which by definition is not existent, since I hold basic principles to be true independent of who wrote them or in what book they might be found.
The following all dictate that to talk about what you know about what was 'here' 'before' existence is irrational:
That matter and energy are required for time and existence.
A universal nothingness cannot have a characteristic.
The problem is that you aren't willing, or able, to admit that the conditions of the early universe were/might have been completely different. You keep repeating the same statements like a Muslim repeating the Qu'ran. I call it dogma and so does the dictionary.
I have adequate grounds.
Repeating something does not make it incorrect.
None-the-less, conditions of the unvierse implies existence. A state of universal nothingness cannot have conditions.
Also, objective reality is the standard and I adhere to it rationally. The impossible is not possible. Nothing plus nothing will always give you nothing. A thing can only be what it is and time or space cannot exist, or more accurately, cannot be properly said to exist, with matter and energy. There was no existent state of nothingness 'before' existence existed. To talk about such a thing is equivelant to talking about pure ice sinking in pure water (without adding additional variables).