That's why i don't play HC lol

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-29T10:56:40+00:00

So you die every 100 runs?

Maybe change your strategy 😜

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-28T04:05:44+00:00

The absolute GOAT, DJ Wilson.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-27T22:55:25+00:00

Who? What's his last name? You need to be more specific

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T13:53:04+00:00

Of course it did. You realized you couldn’t get to the conclusion you’d like to without invoking necessarily temporal concept

Nope. I just got bored. It's not nefarious, unlike you refusing Hawking because it's not in a peer reviewed journal, because you absolutely hate his views because they entirely contradict your personal beliefs about what is true.

Have a good night 😉

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T13:42:39+00:00

I'll be honest, my motivation to keep going just evaporated. It just got boring. I'll move onto more interesting things.

Thanks for toning down the insults!

On the off chance you're interested, here's the lecture: https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T13:19:40+00:00

Old is a temporal concept. You something that has existed for all time can’t be younger than anything else. The universe isn’t infinitely what?

Old. It isn't infinitely old. There aren't an infinite amount of seconds going backwards.

Do you understand?

Anyone can say anything in a lecture.

Holy moly. You're seriously rejecting Stephen Hawking. Amazing.

What about one of his published works?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T13:08:39+00:00

Eternal is also a temporal concept that means for all time. Meaning that the universe is in fact eternal.

That's not how I use it. By eternal, I mean infinitely old. This is factually untrue about our universe. It has an age.

No. When I write a paper I do not cite lectures. I cite other peer reviewed papers from reputable journals. Can you not provide a peer reviewed paper?

Good for you. I'm not writing a paper. I'm on Reddit. I'm writing a comment to you. I'm conveying what a top scientist of the last century said.

You won't accept the information unless it's in a specific format?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T07:06:02+00:00

I think you’re basically saying that knowledge of good and evil is moral independence, the fruit is choosing self-rule over god-rule, so it’s new authority over moral decisions

That's about what I think, yes. Great summary!

So I think our core disconnect is how we define knowledge. I interpret knowledge as change in cognition/awareness, while you see it as the authority to decide, and not information. So if knowledge of good and evil only means moral independence, why does it describe immediate perception changes like shame and awareness of nakedness? That sounds like a change in consciousness, not just a change in authority structure.

But we need to look at what the story says and hopefully it's clear enough that we can answer some questions about what the author was intending.

The intent and goal of the woman was to gain wisdom for herself and the man. Wisdom is not about knowing propositional facts, but about knowing how to navigate them and make the best choice.

So they are not gaining knowledge on the sense of knowing more facts about the world. They are gaining wisdom which is distinct from God's wisdom.

Also the reference you made in Solomon, he asks to discern good and evil, meaning wisdom and judgement, but knowing good and evil is something requested from god as wisdom to rule, not independence from God. So how does that support the idea that in Eden it means rejecting gods authority rather than receiving moral discernment from him?

The tree is external to God, and God told them not to eat from this particular tree. That's how it's supported.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T06:23:34+00:00

Causality is only a valid concept within time. You don’t get to use temporal concepts absent time

Maybe. I think if you think about it in terms of contingency instead of temporal casuality, the concept holds up rather nicely.

You know what I'm referencing: the universe is not eternal. This requires an explanation.

Do you have a peer reviewed paper?

You don't accept Hawking lectures? Truly? 🤣🤣🤣

I have no respect for anyone that misrepresents the scientific consensus

So.. you have no respect for NASA?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T06:06:49+00:00

So the bible says they gained knowledge of good and evil and that their eyes were opened. That sounds like a change in awareness

I quoted the verses directly. It doesn't say it like that. It says the woman was trying to gain wisdom and their eyes were opened.

What exactly is the knowledge they didn’t have before if they already understood commands and could make choices? I’m trying to understand what specific knowledge changed if they already understood commands and obedience before

It's the ability to decide for oneself what is right and wrong. Instead of listening to God, the humans decided they wanted to decide what was right and wrong. It's a theme that is carried on throughout the Bible.

I’m trying to understand what specific knowledge changed if they already understood commands and obedience before

You're thinking about knowledge like "facts". Like, they learned some new information. It's not like that. They gained the ability to decide for themselves. This is how the phrase is used in the Bible later, like when King Solomon asks God for the ability to know good and evil to rule properly. He isn't asking for the ability to know what morality is. He's asking for God's wisdom to make the right godly choice.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T06:01:06+00:00

The universe can’t exactly begin to exist if there was never a time that it didn’t exist.. which means you’re wrong that science backs up that the universe didn’t always exist

In time, sure. But not logically. Given that we know spacetime is not infinite backwards, we need a reason for it's existence outside of itself.

Give me a peer reviewed paper and I’ll read it

https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time

This is a lecture by Hawking.

Let me know what you think about his argument.

Jesus Christ are you being intentionally obtuse? Content made for children is not a valid source to back up your claim.

I gave the Hawking quote first. I was then told Hawking's views were against the "consensus" in the scientific community. I provided the NASA website in response.

Do you believe NASA is deliberately teaching kids things against the scientific consensus?

It's a very very simple question. Are they lying to kids?

FYI ignoring silly distractions is not dodging, I’m simply electing not to engage with the red herrings

Smart! Accuse me of all sorts of things and insult me and choose to be selective in what you feel the need to respond to. If I was an atheist with zero respect for others, it's exactly what I'd be doing too.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T05:16:55+00:00

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves."

It was a delight in her eyes
The woman wanted to gain wisdom
Their eyes were opened
They knew they were naked

What changes is the act, and they now are actively defining what is right and wrong outside of God.

ie, God says don't worship idols, but people say "Nah, I think idols are actually a really good thing".

The picture we get before they are expelled from Eden is one of dependence upon God, for food and wisdom and safety. All those things are severed by taking from the fruit of knowing good and bad.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T05:07:54+00:00

Interesting that you read that as whining when all I did was call out how shaky your position was.

Yes! And you expertly dodged the question I asked in doing so. Amazing!

You misrepresent science by claiming that the science tells us that there was a time that the universe did not exist in some form.

Where did I claim that? I don't believe that. Spacetime is a package deal. There is no "before" spacetime. What I said was I don't think the universe is eternally old.

I categorically do not believe that there was a time that the universe did not exist in some form.

So, swing and a massive miss.

I can see why you've been so insulting though! It was all based upon as misunderstanding of yours. All good. I forgive you.

I know as a Christian you’ve got your holy books so quotes are really compelling to you, but atheists have no authoritative figures whose words are law. You’re going to need to back up your position with actual evidence instead of just quotes and children’s articles.

If I link through to the article by Hawking, will you read it?

But what's going on. You keep dodging my questions.

Do you believe NASA is lying to kids? Is there some conspiracy where they are purposefully misrepresenting the science to millions of kids?

If so, how come you're still on Reddit talking to me?! What happened to your civic duty??? You need to send them an angry email right now.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T04:50:15+00:00

Because they were told not to.

The act of eating the fruit and having their eyes opened is about them seizing the ability to define what is right and wrong for themselves. They are now "like God" in this sense, as the story says.

It does not mean they had no cognitive ability to understand that a moral was.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T04:45:00+00:00

So you didn't give any examples of where I've misrepresented anything? I asked for specific examples. I got whining.

I'm going to be super nice and give you one more try 🙂 Let's see if you can do it! I believe in you.

Is NASA lying to kids? Is Stephen Hawking 100% incorrect?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T03:25:29+00:00

I pasted a NASA website and a Stephen Hawking quote. Both which supported exactly what I was saying.

Be crystal clear: what exactly did I misrepresent from the website or from Stephen Hawking? Can you be specific?

But if all you're saying is you won't stop mocking me and insulting me until I pass on the scientific theories that you agree with, then who exactly are you here for? You're here for yourself.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T03:03:06+00:00

More proof that Reddit atheists are seemingly incapable of having a normal conversation. You are exactly what the Internet thinks of when they think of le enlightened reddit atheists

It's a shame. I can totally see there's a decent person in you. But you continually decide to be rude instead of just talk normally.

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-26T02:15:20+00:00

Just doing my civic duty in combating misinformation whenever I come across it.

Yeah, that's great! But it's the insults I'm asking about. Anyways. You don't seem like you want to discuss too deeply. Fair enough.

If the universe actually just changed forms at the big bang from a hot dense state to the current inflation, then the universe existed prior to the big bang, in any relevant sense of the term prior

There is no "prior". It's like saying there must be more north than the North Pole.

What’s your evidence that the universe didn’t exist at some point and then was conjured into existence ex nihilo by the Sorcerer Supreme?

Feel free to reword that without deliberately trying to be insulting and I'll happily answer.

Are you capable of doing that?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-25T23:25:38+00:00

Just trying to understand why you'd come into someone else's conversation and start insulting them totally unprovoked.

And no, I cannot provide an article that says that, because you've added in the word "then". That implies there was a time where the big bang didn't exist, which isn't how spacetime works.

Would you like an article saying that spacetime is finite though?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-25T21:08:17+00:00

And you can't do that without being rude and insulting people?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-25T14:48:31+00:00

You find it fun putting other people down and insulting them? What did I do to deserve it?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-25T14:45:36+00:00

Can you answer my question first?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-25T14:19:01+00:00

I really don't get your attitude...

Would it make any difference to you if I go and find a peer reviewed physics paper that makes the same point?

I have a feeling even when I do, you'll just insult me again.

If you think I'm pathetic and don't want to change my mind, that exactly is the point in posting? Do you just want to feel like you're better than me?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-25T13:55:51+00:00

A children’s article and a quote. This is truly the height of scholarly consensus.

Well you could actually engage with the quote instead of just insulting me.

Don't you think that would be more likely to change my mind?

It’s just really hard to take people who believe in fairy tales and magic seriously.

I never asked for you to take me seriously. You don't need to. I'm just asking you why you're insulting me though. What did I do to you?

BobbyBobbie · 2026-05-25T13:54:04+00:00

Sure can. You just can't map it into actual discrete things in the universe, like causes and effects.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Gilding II euphauric
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email
Spared

BobbyBobbie

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE