What Was Before ' the Beginning '....?

[Tonus]

For fucks sake it just is you don't need to assert that it is you just look at it. You don't have to learn much science to know this.

You don't have to learn any science to "just look at" something and make up a reason why it's there. The scientific method is what helped us move past that stage, where we just guessed at why or how. We have long since moved beyond the habit of either asserting or "just looking." And what we found was not god.

[Esquilax]

You're the one who ignorant and providing the simpleton non-answer that the universe just exists because it created itself and was perfect for complex life by blind luck.

Oh, okay: you're just a filthy fucking liar then. Or too dense to actually take in what I wrote literally a post ago.

Which is it, Sword? Are you an asshole, or a dumbass?

Get serious here, you know you're wrong.

Go fuck yourself.

At least deep down somewhere you must have some concerns about what you actually believe in face of the everything to contrary.

Considering you have absolutely no idea what it is that I believe, and you seem content to lie about it, I don't feel much need to answer this part.

For fucks sake it just is you don't need to assert that it is you just look at it. You don't have to learn much science to know this. A lot of scientists do actually manage to ignore this but a lot of them are serious hardcore fundamentalist materialists or they just don't think outside the box.

And there you go, ignoring what you don't like and asserting baselessly that things are the way you want them to be, as though the universe will rearrange itself according to your temper tantrum.

Yet we can study and perfectly well understand it all, there is a lot to understand because it is perfectly well ordered, structured and can be figured out.

Or, we can assign a semblance of order to it based on our ability to recognize patterns and apply them to make predictive models. However, those patterns are down to the way a small set of physical constants work upon raw material, depending on numerous random factors, called variables.

This is because an intelligent mind created the thing not a blind purposeless force.

Assertion. Where's the evidence? And your argument from ignorance doesn't count, here.

Look how the universe developed and expanded over time, look at everything that formed and was produced. See the sheer amount of stuff that had to go on before the first ever form of life could be formed in the first bit of primordial ooze anywhere. That is not a blind chaos.

No, it's not: it is, as I said, a cascading series of consequences flowing from one to the next, building an ever more complex series of events and structures based on the ones that have come before. No god required; complexity can arise from simplicity.

Come on, bollocks was this all random. A product of a supreme consciousness this was.

Could you put those behind hide tags next time? Oh, and I have one thing to say to all those desperate, meaningless connections that function purely on your own confirmation bias:



For every thing you can post showing some form of order, I can post an equally baffling fragment of weird shit. Because see, just pointing to random stuff and going "see?! see?!" doesn't prove anything: it's that argument from personal incredulity I was telling you about earlier.

Exactly, you understand this so why are calling it a random unintentional chaos?

I'm not, I'm calling it an undesigned, emergent series of events. Aren't you paying attention?

YES!

You see you do understand what I mean.

Except I don't make the unjustified assumption that all of those things come from god... because there's no evidence for it. All we've demonstrated here is that simple things can build upon themselves toward complex outcomes; you're begging the question by just saying that only god could do that.

No you're trying to say it's a random chaos, and then you turn around and say it's orderly, structured and understandable. Of course it is, God created it the flaming thing!

I'm saying things act according to their physical properties and the laws of the universe. You're saying those laws came from god; the difference is, we can see that what I'm saying is true. You haven't shown a thing to demonstrate a god.

I know as much as yourself but I'm coming to honest conclusion here not trying to pass it off as "random chaos" then claiming it's understandable and predictable!

If you keep strawmanning my argument, you're going to lose credibility.

And how do you know that you know as much as me? For all you know, you could be talking to a physics professor right now. Stop making unjustified assumptions.

You embarrass yourself with your half arsed double standards and denial of the reality of God more like. The structure of the universe is only half the issue don't get say the objectivity of morality and the nature of good and evil and freewill.

Do you want to start demonstrating your god exists, rather than just pointing to random things in the universe?

No no you are the child here who needs to grow the fuck up and accept the truth that God does exist.

So, is there anyone here at all that thinks that "No, you!" is a mature response? Anyone at all?

The truth is all around you and you yourself demonstrated that you actually understand it. You're just being dishonest with yourself and applying double standards.

Here we go again: no proof or evidence, so you resort to just recasting the entire conversation as some kind of lie I'm telling, knowingly. You're making it impossible to have a civil discourse with you.

Predictable pure random chaos is it? Yes contradict yourself.

Standard theistic black and white thinking.

Elements of randomness, surrounding a series of underlying constants that can be used to predict things, once we've apprehended enough of the random variables.

Demonstrate it to yourself by opening your eyes and actually looking. The truth is the truth and you go where the evidence takes you it doesn't matter if you don't like the truth or you find it uncomfortable.

And you assume I haven't investigated because... why, exactly? Because I haven't come to the conclusion that you are definitely, absolutely right?

No I haven't shown a lack of understanding of the universe it's you who are showing a lack of understanding with your double standard arguments.

Again, anyone pegging "no, you!" as the mark of a keen intellect?

No?

The people, places and historical events are true.

Well, there weren't any Jewish slaves in Egypt, so that's not true from the outset.

Visions, prophecies, miracles or whatever are contentious issues yes and will have to be taken on faith, but there is a good case that the resurrection occurred. Even if it didn't you still don't get to deny the existence of God. At least without a decent argument that doesn't apply a double standard.

Hmm, someone's found a new pet phrase...

You can come to the truth with a little bit of thought, the ancient Greek philosophers did this and generally the consensus was that there is an uncreated first cause. It's just common sense you need faith for this.

You can't think your way to the truth if you come into the thing with a pre-existing bias, like your religion is. When you come into a philosophical discussion with the aim of proving your god is real, rather than coming to a true conclusion, then your thinking is already tainted.

You only say because you don't have any, or you think you don't have any. You lack/deny the experience because you're claiming God is a myth/delusion.

My motivations have nothing to do with this conversation, so twisting them- when you know next to nothing about me, I'd remind everyone- does nothing to prove your point.

No atheism is the biggest load of crap ever. Atheism is the delusion not theism, God is real and the arguments for his existence are rock solid.

Third time, going on three: "No, you!" Are we sold on "No, you!" as a mature response, yet?

The universe God himself created is real enough as is the conscious experience of existence we have of it and the conscious experience billions of people have of what lays behind it all. Though no doubt you want to deny the whole of reality as some kind of myth or delusion you may as well.

You know, I think I actually prefer Gracie at this point, guys. At least she bothers trying not to look like a goddamn baby...

Yes if you don't want to have freewill or biological physical life.

How would not creating black holes impact on my freewill? :confused:

I'm sure he didn't just "pop something into existence" it will be more complicated than that. Possibly a series of emanations and dimensions of different layers of space and time or whatever, we don't fucking know. Black holes are a result of the law of gravity having to be the way it has to be, it's a vital ingredient and it had to be very precisely exactly as it is there wasn't room for error.

Wave them hands! Wave 'em!

The physical laws of the universe can be adjusted and run on computer simulations so we know how precise it has to be. It had be 100% exactly as it is. Perfect mathematical design and structure right the way through, an orderly sequence of construction.

Bullshit. And even if it wasn't, creating a just so story doesn't make it so.

Perfect as in perfect for the formation of utterly complex biological beings. No margin for error. The universe was made intentionally for this very purpose and this intentional purpose giver is God. You don't go around around denying his existence or the works of his hands. You have you biological father here on Earth who made your physical body and your heavenly father who made your eternal soul.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence so... no.

Biological life could not exist had the universe been any different and we know this is true. Yes God could have created something entirely different and he did, there are other realities than our current experience of the physical universe.

If you can't show it, you don't know it.

Interesting how all these things you say are scientific don't come with documentation.

Because I have read book about this, the precise balance of the natural laws required for life is scientifically factually true. This isn't open to debate it's just how it is.

Was that book the bible?

Environmental Biology but that has nothing to do with this issue.

It kinda does, if you're going to go against the majority of mainstream science based on no education in the field in question.

I know atheism as a belief is all about and it's just plain wrong, even if Christianity is wrong atheism is still wrong. I'm explaining why it's wrong.

No, you're misrepresenting my position, the position of others on this forum too, while ignoring us when we try to correct you. You're building strawmen. It's dishonest.

I'll tell you what I believe. You said that I believe that the universe created itself. I don't believe that, and I've told you I don't believe that before now. Therefore, you are lying.

Jesus was a religious kind of a guy you know. I think he may had a bit of a belief in God there, I just get that impression that he may have agreed with me on the God issue. So yes he would want that for me and he would want that for as well. Least you can do if he died for your sins?

He would want you to lie? Because that's what I was asking. Jesus would want you to lie?

I thought there was a commandment against that...

[Ryantology]

This universe is so perfect for complex life that you can find it scattered all over this one tiny and insignificant dust mote (and perhaps a handful of others) in the midst of a vast universe which is otherwise entirely void of life, complex or not, and instantly fatal to the vast majority of it without serious protection. And, the life which does inhabit roughly 0.000000000000000000000000000001% of a universe allegedly designed for it is designed so well that there are only countless ways organisms can simply fail to function pretty much by random accident. Our species shows such hallmarks of perfect design that the failure of almost any part of the body is apt to cause permanent death. But hey, I guess a perfectly-designed car, in your little fantasy land, is one you'd have to junk if the alternator blew on it.

[Tonus]

But hey, I guess a perfectly-designed car, in your little fantasy land, is one you'd have to junk if the alternator blew on it.

My perfectly-designed car would not emit something as imperfectly-designed as carbon monoxide.

[LastPoet]

This universe is so perfect for complex life that you can find it scattered all over this one tiny and insignificant dust mote (and perhaps a handful of others) in the midst of a vast universe which is otherwise entirely void of life, complex or not, and instantly fatal to the vast majority of it without serious protection. And, the life which does inhabit roughly 0.000000000000000000000000000001% of a universe allegedly designed for it is designed so well that there are only countless ways organisms can simply fail to function pretty much by random accident. Our species shows such hallmarks of perfect design that the failure of almost any part of the body is apt to cause permanent death. But hey, I guess a perfectly-designed car, in your little fantasy land, is one you'd have to junk if the alternator blew on it.

Not exactly, because we can fix some things due to medicine, that is science, and it works bitches *Flips a birdie at fundamentalists"

[Whateverist]

You're the one who ignorant and providing the simpleton non-answer that the universe just exists because it created itself and was perfect for complex life by blind luck. Get serious here, you know you're wrong. At least deep down somewhere you must have some concerns about what you actually believe in face of the everything to contrary.

I'm about to conclude that you are simply on an apologist mission and not at all interested in honest inquiry. If that's the case you could make this easier for me by being upfront about it.

What I haven't heard you address is the actual position of science. Science doesn't have a default stance on what came before everything cosmologically nor on how exactly life arose. The answers to both those questions are unknown. One can trace the current state of the universe back a fair distance and identify evidence for various transformations. The same goes for evolution. Not yet knowing how the inorganic/organic line first got crossed does not commit anyone to a blind luck assumption. At this point all suggestions thus far offered are hypotheses still looking for evidence. That includes the God hypothesis as well as the primordial soup hypothesis.

Do you or do you not in fact begin with the axiomatic assumption of God? It must be fun to view science through the filter of "fine tuned by God himself". But that is apologist science, not the kind that has actually accomplished so much. Creationists are parasites incapable of producing anything useful themselves, unless you count making it easier for people wedded to a medieval mindset to feel at home in the modern world.

[max-greece]

Sword,

Nice pictures. For your theory to hold you have to show increasing complexity with time - in other words the idea of your God building layer upon layer of complexity culminating in us.

What would not happen is any sign of decreasing complexity. Sadly, of course, we see many examples of decreasing complexity alongside advancing complexity in other areas simultaneously.

So, for example, the 5 great extinction events we know of caused a massive and sudden decrease in complexity of life on earth - pretty much across the board.

Even if you were to view these as temporary set-backs (or maybe even planned slim-lining) you have to face the fact that some levels of complexity have never been achieved again (to date anyway).

If we look at flight, for example, the Pterosaur, it now appears was the ultimate flier and nothing has come close to what it could do till our machines. It appears their flying ability was far superior to that of today's birds.

Why would God create something more complicated and then abandon it?

[Walking Void]

There are a few theories that I accept, and none of them are obstinate about some "beginning" of time. They are: the big freeze, the big rip, and the big crunch. They begin after the big bang. They all rely on the premise of dark energy, from which, a force greater than gravity is pushing the universe outwards, instead of pulling it inwards. Stretching instead of contracting. Whether the cosmological constant is perfectly constant, it is not yet understood. This study is never implying of a creation story, with a beginning and an end. No, it is quite possible that universes unlike our own could have been forming the same way ours did, but are not observable, being so distant. A cyclic life makes sense, but is not proven.

[Chas]

There was an eternally existing God beyond time that's what there was. Why do atheists have to make it difficult by claiming he isn't real?

Why do theists have to make it difficult making claims without evidence?

[max-greece]

Was God learning as he went along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota



From the article:

"One paleontologist proposed a separate kingdom level category Vendozoa (now renamed Vendobionta)[7] in the Linnaean hierarchy for the Ediacaran biota. If these enigmatic organisms left no descendants their strange forms might be seen as a "failed experiment" in multicellular life with later multicellular life independently evolving from unrelated single-celled organisms.[8]"

How odd
Of God
To give the nod
To biota like this
Something's amiss.