If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

I have read it.

Claiming you took the time and effort to read a PhD dissertation in physics from Oxford University is a blatant lie, and it is your pervasive dishonesty that keeps most people from committing to any serious discussion with you.

You didn't even know about the standard model of particle physics:

C

Thread 'The greatest success story in physics'

Mar 28, 2024

Our best explanation of physical reality.

• Cypress

I would offer to answer any questions that you might have about it, but you would neither understand any of the material

That's because you would have to plagiarize or paraphrase what other people have written explaining Hawkins dissertation.

 

[IBDaMann]

Claiming you took the time and effort to read a PhD dissertation in physics from Oxford University is a blatant lie,

... says the guy who thinks engineers use the "standard model of particle physics" to build technology, and not chemistry and physics.

and it is your pervasive dishonesty

You are eternally dishonest and stupid.

 

[Cypress]

... says the guy who thinks engineers use the "standard model of particle physics" to build technology, and not chemistry and physics.


You are eternally dishonest and stupid.

Thanks for tacitly admitting you had never previously heard of one of the most famous theoretical frameworks in the history of science- i.e., the standard model of particle physics.

But then you want me to believe that you took the time and effort to read a 1966 PhD dissertation in physics from Oxford University

 

[Margot]

No, it's a question for you given you are the one telling us about the nature of spirit. So far you've made positive declarations (like that spirit is not held to the laws of physics) which you offer without evidence.

You can't then go hand waving away your inability to support your own claims.

No, it's a question for you given you are the one telling us about the nature of spirit. So far you've made positive declarations (like that spirit is not held to the laws of physics) which you offer without evidence.

You can't then go hand waving away your inability to support your own claims.

Evidence? You don't believe me?

 

[Margot]

Deep...for the shallow end of the pool.

Whatever

 

[Margot]

Why? Does a spirit made of matter? Does a spirit have energy? If it is neither, how do you know it exists?

Epiphany

 

[Into the Night]

They are not 'random' equations.

They are random equations.

They are among the most famous and important equations in the history of science,

No, they aren't. The universe isn't random equations.

and instantly recognizable to anyone who had a few semesters of college physics.

Physics is not a class, Clanker.

It says something about you and your science illiteracy that you didn't recognize them.

Inversion fallacy. Strawman fallacy. Random equations are not the universe, Clanker.

 

[Into the Night]

Epiphany

Random word. Try again. YARP:

 

[Into the Night]

Claiming you took the time and effort to read a PhD dissertation in physics from Oxford University is a blatant lie, and it is your pervasive dishonesty that keeps most people from committing to any serious discussion with you.

You didn't even know about the standard model of particle physics:

That's because you would have to plagiarize or paraphrase what other people have written explaining Hawkins dissertation.

Random equations are not the Universe, Clanker.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for tacitly admitting you had never previously heard of one of the most famous theoretical frameworks in the history of science- i.e., the standard model of particle physics.

There is no 'standard model' of anything, Clanker.

But then you want me to believe that you took the time and effort to read a 1966 PhD dissertation in physics from Oxford University

Random equations are not the Universe, Clanker.

 

[Into the Night]

Evidence? You don't believe me?

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.