The unmoved mover

[Arkilogue]

Because "god" explains nothing.  It is a completely adhoc conjecture that does not even rise to the level of being a scientific hypothesis as it makes no testable predictions of any kind.

Everything depends on how you define The God. I imagine most people make the cardinal mistake of projecting a personality on God.

[Arkilogue]

This is bullshit, the type of which drips from William Lane Craig's mouth.  A number of eternal cosmologies, with beginningless and endless Universes, exist in the published literature.  You can find them right here:

https://arxiv.org/

So much for Neil DeGrasse Tyson's new Cosmos series eh?

[Jehanne]

Because "god" explains nothing.  It is a completely adhoc conjecture that does not even rise to the level of being a scientific hypothesis as it makes no testable predictions of any kind.

Everything depends on how you define The God. I imagine most people make the cardinal mistake of projecting a personality on God.

It's a "definition" that is completely adhoc, superfluous and unnecessary.  One could say that "god" was a unicorn with purple spots atop a green coating who, in his/her/its eternal majesty, watches reruns of Friends, "timelessly," of course.

[Cyberman]

I remain unmoved.

Your emotions did not move but you thought, you typed. You moved in place in several ways without going anywhere.

Were you there? Or did you just assume?

Similar qualities of the Unmoved Mover.

It has an AF account? Neat.

Please let it be a sock...

[Jehanne]

This is bullshit, the type of which drips from William Lane Craig's mouth.  A number of eternal cosmologies, with beginningless and endless Universes, exist in the published literature.  You can find them right here:

https://arxiv.org/

So much for Neil DeGrasse Tyson's new Cosmos series eh?

Which has nothing to do with cosmological papers, as Tyson is not a professional cosmologist.

[Arkilogue]

Everything depends on how you define The God. I imagine most people make the cardinal mistake of projecting a personality on God.

It's a "definition" that is completely adhoc, superfluous and unnecessary.  One could say that "god" was a unicorn with purple spots atop a green coating who, in his/her/its eternal majesty, watches reruns of Friends, "timelessly," of course.

What kind of logical predictions does that make on the nature of the universe?

[Arkilogue]

Your emotions did not move but you thought, you typed. You moved in place in several ways without going anywhere.

Were you there? Or did you just assume?

Similar qualities of the Unmoved Mover.

It has an AF account? Neat.

Please let it be a sock...

I did assume that you are human, but you could be using voice dictation software.

[Arkilogue]

So much for Neil DeGrasse Tyson's new Cosmos series eh?

Which has nothing to do with cosmological papers, as Tyson is not a professional cosmologist.

So much for 99% of the scientifically minded people on the planet that believe the Big Bang story.

Would you say they are misled?

[Jehanne]

It's a "definition" that is completely adhoc, superfluous and unnecessary.  One could say that "god" was a unicorn with purple spots atop a green coating who, in his/her/its eternal majesty, watches reruns of Friends, "timelessly," of course.

What kind of logical predictions does that make on the nature of the universe?

"Logical predictions" may have had their day in Aristotle's time (who rejected the heliocentrism of Aristarchus, by the way), but modern science, physics in particular, has moved beyond that.  Science is about building models, which are then tested against observation and experiment.

[Jehanne]

Which has nothing to do with cosmological papers, as Tyson is not a professional cosmologist.

So much for 99% of the scientifically minded people on the planet that believe the Big Bang story.

Would you say they are misled?

The Big Bang does not demand an absolute beginning of space/time to our Universe.  Are you saying that these cosmologists are being misled:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301042