(April 25, 2016 at 10:00 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:So, you don't think that the beginning of space-time and all physical reality (including physical laws) could be characterized as a new system? Please also explain how the laws of physics stop working at Planck time (before you get back to the singularity) and how the First Law of Thermodynamics mysteriously is exempt and will continue on not just to the singularity, but through to the other side. 

In addition, please tell us what came 'before' the Big Bang that avoids the absurdity of a past infinite chain.

Fallacy of composition, Steve. As you pointed out, our universe is the system, and the Laws of Thermodynamics apply within it, within the space and time of existence as we know it. We know that things in the universe have to follow the LoTs, but we have no basis for concluding that the LoTs apply to the universe itself or to the conditions preceding it.

BTW, so many people like to claim that a past infinite chain is absurd, but none of them can prove it isn't the case. The argument against infinite regression seems to consist of primarily 'it makes my brain hurt so it can't be true'.

I was replying to the OP's claim the the LoTs prove that the universe was not created. It was his assertion that they apply all the way back to before the universe.

(April 24, 2016 at 3:38 am)robvalue Wrote: If someone makes the claim that it's impossible, it's up to them to make that case. Just screwing around with logic isn't enough to prove things about reality and beyond; and infinite regression isn't a logical problem anyway. It would be some sort of restraint that causes a problem.

Once you cross prior to the initial boundary of our universe, all you have is logic and metaphysics. If your position is that it does not apply, that is an opinion not based in fact. At least for those that believe logic and metaphysics can help us answer questions about prior conditions, we have 13 billion years of evidence that has been 100% reliable. 

When we weigh your unsupported opinion against 13 billion years of dependable evidence, I will go with the evidence.

(April 25, 2016 at 9:50 am)Irrational Wrote:

(April 25, 2016 at 9:47 am)Drich Wrote: Here's your problem, The same argument can be made of 'science.' Instead of having God to fill the gaps you crutch in science to fill the same gaps. I know on the surface science can be used to explain the discernible, but when it comes to things out of our reach (say origins/big bang) you are in no better shape than a creationist who says "God did it." Why? because you still have an un-caused, cause. In the case of the believer God speaks the universe into existence. where science is god, you have a "basket ball" explode and everything that is comes from said basket ball. If as you say their isn't an infinite regression then your left with the answer "science says so" when someone asks what caused the big bang.

So then how is that position any more tenable than "God did it?"

Science will always be a better method for knowledge in any field than just postulating some entity we have no empirical evidence for.

Again you guys don't seem to understand that 'empirical evidence' can be manuplited to say anything the man funding the 'science' wants it to say.

In the 1940s 9 doctors out of 10 said smoking is healthy.
In the 1930s German Scientists discovered that the Aryans were pinicale of human evolution/The master race.
In the 1960s dumping toxic waste in the ocean was said to have no negitive effect.
In the 1970s Their was going to be a minnie Ice age by 2000 (global cooling)
In the 1980 Their was a hole in the Ozone that would never close (till we taxed comsumers enough and it did)
Then in the late 1990s Global warming started.
Then by 2010 the phrase was changed to global climate change so whether it gets warmer or colder "science" and continue to claim the sky is falling and tax consumers till we have nothing left to tax.

Your god "science" is a whore that follows who or whatever has the most money, and will say anything for 'more funding.'

So if be 'better method of knowledge' you mean a conduit for propaganda and social control, then yes I agree.

(April 25, 2016 at 10:07 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Here's your problem, The same argument can be made of 'science.' Instead of having God to fill the gaps you crutch in science to fill the same gaps. I know on the surface science can be used to explain the discernible, but when it comes to things out of our reach (say origins/big bang) you are in no better shape than a creationist who says "God did it." Why? because you still have an un-caused, cause. In the case of the believer God speaks the universe into existence. where science is god, you have a "basket ball" explode and everything that is comes from said basket ball. If as you say their isn't an infinite regression then your left with the answer "science says so" when someone asks what caused the big bang.

So then how is that position any more tenable than "God did it?"

In every case where we've found the answer to something in nature, it has actually turned out to be natural. In science, the question isn't considered answered until it is both understood and confirmed by evidence.

AGAIN, what in you mind makes God ONLY a Supernatural Being?

Do you Really think God can only be defined by your stereotype?

Quote:The problem with explaining the origin of the universe isn't with finding answers that work mathematically and match the available evidence; it's that there are multiple 'answers' (hypotheses) that we don't have a way of confirming with evidence yet. If we never do, the answer to the question, scientifically, will be 'We don't know' forever.Science doesn't pretend to have answers when it doesn't.

That's completely untrue. I've seen video of 'heavy weight scientists' completely slamming other theories on the size and approximate mass of the universe before the 'big bang' happened. How could anyone possibly know this 1 and 2 who gives a squirt? The point is heavyweights like Hawkings and krauss do make claims and stand on them as truth, and defend them religiously.

Quote: That is what makes it more tenable than clinging to a cultural construct made by people who didn't know the earth orbits the sun.

Apples and oranges. You are making a scientific comparison on a book of religious philosophy. False equivocation sport.

Does "God" have any effect, however miniscule, on the Universe whatsoever (answering prayers or petitions, manipulating causality to cause miracles etc)?

If "yes", then that effect ought to be at least detectable, if not measurable. Otherwise how can you possibly even suspect it happens at all?

If "no", then this god can safely be ignored as irrelevant to the Universe altogether.

(April 25, 2016 at 12:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Does "God" have any effect, however miniscule, on the Universe whatsoever (answering prayers or petitions, manipulating causality to cause miracles etc)?

If "yes", then that effect ought to be at least detectable, if not measurable. Otherwise how can you possibly even suspect it happens at all?

If "no", then this god can safely be ignored as irrelevant to the Universe altogether.

That is so true,  It does not matter if something is "unseen" or "seen." 
It only matters that, for us to accept its existence, there must be evidence of that existence. 
Evidence includes all the effects the unseen thing has on the material world. 

If there is nothing 'observable' about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

I've had theists tell me I'm being unreasonable and irrational for 'demanding' physical evidence of a non-physical cause, ie their pet god. They miss the point I just laid out; that it's not the cause for which we require evidence, but the alleged effects, which we can then investigate and determine if they actually support the non-physical cause the theists posit.

(April 25, 2016 at 12:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Does "God" have any effect, however miniscule, on the Universe whatsoever (answering prayers or petitions, manipulating causality to cause miracles etc)?

If "yes", then that effect ought to be at least detectable, if not measurable. Otherwise how can you possibly even suspect it happens at all?

If "no", then this god can safely be ignored as irrelevant to the Universe altogether.

Would you assume the method of God answering a prayer/petition to be the same each and every time? What if a given answer comes in the way of lifting the veil off your eyes and would allow you to see Him? What would you measure? After 'proof' of God has got to be one of the all time most common prayer that just about everyone has prayed for. I can think a dozen ways without giving it any thought as to how this prayer Might be answered, and each one would be different. So then what all encompassing instrument would you use, when and where would you set it up?

Again all that to demonstrate the feasibility of measuring a answered prayer would have to be contingent on knowing How when and what method a prayer must be answered. if God were had to use a singular methodology to answer a given prayer would he then still be considered God?

(April 26, 2016 at 5:13 am)Spinchance Wrote:

(April 25, 2016 at 12:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Does "God" have any effect, however miniscule, on the Universe whatsoever (answering prayers or petitions, manipulating causality to cause miracles etc)?

If "yes", then that effect ought to be at least detectable, if not measurable. Otherwise how can you possibly even suspect it happens at all?

If "no", then this god can safely be ignored as irrelevant to the Universe altogether.

That is so true,  It does not matter if something is "unseen" or "seen." 
It only matters that, for us to accept its existence, there must be evidence of that existence. 
Evidence includes all the effects the unseen thing has on the material world. 

If there is nothing 'observable' about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

-Or perhaps you do not know where and when to look.

(April 26, 2016 at 8:32 am)Stimbo Wrote: I've had theists tell me I'm being unreasonable and irrational for 'demanding' physical evidence of a non-physical cause, ie their pet god. They miss the point I just laid out; that it's not the cause for which we require evidence, but the alleged effects, which we can then investigate and determine if they actually support the non-physical cause the theists posit.

I have never told you that.

I myself have always been a doubting Thomas. I am a visual person I have to see things and how they work. Because of this I myself did not come to God till later in life.

Jesus Himself says to Thomas "Blessed are those who can believe without seeing." Many take that to mean We ALL must have blind faith. but what the people who created that extra-biblical doctrine missed, was the fact that Jesus physically appeared to Thomas to say that. Meaning He did not say 'shame on you for not having so much blind faith you could fake yourself out into belief..' Rather He gave what thomas exactly what he needed to establish and maintain his belief. He did the same with Paul. In turn He has offered the same thing to all of the rest of us on an individual level. All we need do is take Him up on his offer.