(February 11, 2012 at 12:02 am)Abracadabra Wrote: Actually the evidence that the universe actually had a beginning started via observations made by astronomers (particular those of Edwin Hubble) in the 1930's. Prior to that it was believed that the universe was infinity old and was basically eternal.

The universe having a beginning does not suggest the Big Bang any more than it does God. The theory used to be that matter always existed, and then they came up with the Big Bang as a response to new boundaries. I repeat to everyone who's slighting this, the Big Bang has no conclusive evidence, just responses. There has been nothing to confirm the theory after they made it. They just conformed the Big Bang to whatever they discovered. That is not evidence, my friends. That is cleaning up a mistake when you find out you were wrong.

Quote:Before you can apply Occam's Razon to theories you must have at least two theories to apply it to.

Two theories: God and evolution. Neither has been observed, tested or demonstrated directly. And evolution can still not explain new info in genomes, or the required tendency for organisms to increase their info. Evolution (or its partnering studies) has to prove that from nothing--not even a vacuum—comes order and thinking. A creation that not only moves and functions, but can consider how it moves and functions. It is improbable that anything could come from nothing for no reason at all, even less probable that it would come into living, breathing existence, even less probable that it could reproduce, even less probable that the organisms would gain unique personalities, and even less probable that it could consider God. We have to consider God because it is so unlikely that we should be able to. Before you can construct "response theories" (a theory molded to fit the evidence instead of confirmed by the evidence) like evolution, you still face the challenge of the origin of existence. Whatever convoluted explanations you use with the Big Bang, it will still have no more proof than God, because it has none. And which is simpler: that the Big Bang banged itself? Or that God, who's nature is larger than earthly understanding (as any creator's would be to the created) made the universe? Remember, eternity, immaterialism, and absence of space exist. Before our universe came to be, there was no time or space, yet the understanding of that lack of time or space is crucial towards figuring out how (if) the Big Bang happened. You have to admit there is a part of existence (or nonexistence) that we do not understand nor can probably ever understand. Well, you’ve just described God. He is eternal, non-material, and can never be fully understood by us. He made nature to accomplish everything he wishes to accomplish, so he shouldn't have to interrupt nature to get our attention.

Care to make any falsifiable predictions based on your god theory? Lay out the specifics, show the evidence, reproduce the experiment? You don't have a god theory. You have a belief in god, the two aren't remotely equivalent. I see you're still peddling your "info in DNA" bullshit. What you've just described is the unknown, which is not your god, nor is your god unknown. It's a pretty well known fairy tale indeed. This is the worst attempt at apologetics I've ever seen.....

(February 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(February 11, 2012 at 12:02 am)Abracadabra Wrote: Actually the evidence that the universe actually had a beginning started via observations made by astronomers (particular those of Edwin Hubble) in the 1930's. Prior to that it was believed that the universe was infinity old and was basically eternal.

The universe having a beginning does not suggest the Big Bang any more than it does God. The theory used to be that matter always existed, and then they came up with the Big Bang as a response to new boundaries. I repeat to everyone who's slighting this, the Big Bang has no conclusive evidence, just responses. There has been nothing to confirm the theory after they made it. They just conformed the Big Bang to whatever they discovered.

Yes they make the theory conform to all the available data as it becomes available. You are correct to point out that that is very different from choosing from the available data that which supports what you already believe on faith. No argument. I concede the point.

(February 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm)Undeceived Wrote: . I repeat to everyone who's slighting this, the Big Bang has no conclusive evidence, just responses.

And I repeat that you are as stupid as your clone bl. The BBT is evidenced by the CMBR (as I mentioned) The Hubble expansion (as has been mentioned). The distribution and amount of primordial elements such as Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Lastly as far as observational evidence we have the distribution and ensuing evolution of galaxies. Here you have four pieces of OBSERVED evidence for the big bang. Shove your stupid confirmation bias up your ass.

Quote:Two theories: God and evolution. Neither has been observed, tested or demonstrated directly.

Of course your right about your sky daddy. For evolution, you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. Just to mention one, try looking up Richard Lenski. Now do us a favor and stop being such a liar for Christ. You do realize a kitten dies everytime you lie and this post makes you a mass murderer.

Quote:God and evolution. Neither has been observed, tested or demonstrated directly.

You're half right....your god is bullshit.

As for the rest of it - this fellow has credibility - you and all your fucking priests do not.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/...essay1.jsp

Quote:With patience and skill, one can even watch evolution in action in some organisms. Peter and Rosemary Grant have spent decades in the Galápagos Islands observing the evolution of beak shape in certain birds, known as Darwin’s finches, in response to changes in seed availability caused by a fluctuating climate and competition. Microbiologists, too, observe evolution in action, including bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics.

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: Then I would say - so fucking what? If the constants had been different, the life as we know it wouldn't have existed and maybe some other form of life would have. That is not evidence of fine-tuning. We are simply one of the possible consequences. Its arrogant to think that we were the objective all along.

If they had been different, there wouldn't be any life. That's the point. Does this mean there could be no spiritual life? No, but certainly no life in a material Universe.

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: If any configuration would have sufficed and it just landed on this one, then it is arbitrarily tuned, not fine tuned.

I didn't say any configuration would have sufficed, I said that God could have created it any way He wanted; it doesn't mean any of those configurations would have led to life.

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: Because there cannot be any time outside the universe.

You don't know that, not that it is even relevant to the point.

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: The universe did not cause itself - it is the efficient cause. Which means, it itself is causeless.

Sorry, try again. An efficient cause is external to the thing it is causing. Even if it were possible that the Universe could be its own efficient cause, it would still mean the Universe had a beginning which defeats your argument, if you had one and hadn't simply descended into incoherency. I'll let Thomas explain it:

"In the world that we sense, we find that efficient causes come in series. We do not, and cannot, find that something is its own efficient cause — for, if something were its own efficient cause, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. But the series of efficient causes cannot possibly go back to infinity. In all such series of causes, a first thing causes one or more intermediaries, and the intermediaries cause the last thing; when a cause is taken out of this series, so is its effect. Therefore, if there were no first efficient cause, there would be no last or intermediary efficient causes. If the series of efficient causes went back to infinity, however, there would be no first efficient cause and, hence, no last or intermediary causes. But there obviously are such causes. We must therefore posit a first efficient cause, which everyone understands to be God."

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: No. By definition, something eternal exists for all time, not outside time.

Then why simply consider his lifespan to be exempt from this distinction? Special pleading?

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

"While in the popular mind, eternity (or foreverness) often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside time. By contrast, infinite temporal existence is then called sempiternity. Something eternal exists outside time; by contrast, something sempiternal exists throughout an infinite time. Sempiternity is also known as everlastingness."

Do you understand that we're talking about metaphysics?

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: Ofcourse you can. Potential infinites of mind are actual infinites of physical reality.
Duh. We do have infinite amount of things. They are referred to as potential infinites because we haven't finished counting them - obviously.

There aren't any actual infinities, that's the point. So, going back to your original misunderstanding of potential infinities, positing a potentially infinite past, means it is at every point finite as it is streaming into infinity backwards, which means the number of events between the past and present is at every point finite, which means the past had a beginning. It also contradicts temporal becoming. I'd appreciate it if you would do some research on this.

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote: If they had been different, there wouldn't be any life. That's the point. Does this mean there could be no spiritual life? No, but certainly no life in a material Universe.

How do you know that? All you can say is that there wouldn't be any life as we know it. That does not mean that there wouldn't be a life at all.

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I didn't say any configuration would have sufficed, I said that God could have created it any way He wanted; it doesn't mean any of those configurations would have led to life.

Why not?

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote: You don't know that, not that it is even relevant to the point.

Yes, I do. And how is the question of time irrelevant to the question if eternity.

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Sorry, try again. An efficient cause is external to the thing it is causing. Even if it were possible that the Universe could be its own efficient cause, it would still mean the Universe had a beginning which defeats your argument, if you had one and hadn't simply descended into incoherency. I'll let Thomas explain it:

"In the world that we sense, we find that efficient causes come in series. We do not, and cannot, find that something is its own efficient cause — for, if something were its own efficient cause, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. But the series of efficient causes cannot possibly go back to infinity. In all such series of causes, a first thing causes one or more intermediaries, and the intermediaries cause the last thing; when a cause is taken out of this series, so is its effect. Therefore, if there were no first efficient cause, there would be no last or intermediary efficient causes. If the series of efficient causes went back to infinity, however, there would be no first efficient cause and, hence, no last or intermediary causes. But there obviously are such causes. We must therefore posit a first efficient cause, which everyone understands to be God."

Read again, you moron. I did not say that the universe was its own cause. I said that the universe was causeless and therefore the efficient cause of everything within it. The universe is causeless, beginning-less and eternal and that is why it is the efficient cause of everything else.

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

"While in the popular mind, eternity (or foreverness) often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside time. By contrast, infinite temporal existence is then called sempiternity. Something eternal exists outside time; by contrast, something sempiternal exists throughout an infinite time. Sempiternity is also known as everlastingness."

Do you understand that we're talking about metaphysics?

e·ter·ni·ty (-tûrn-t)
n. pl. e·ter·ni·ties
1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2. The state or quality of being eternal.
3.
a. The timeless state following death.
b. The afterlife; immortality.
4. A very long or seemingly endless time: waited in the dentist's office for an eternity.

It seems that theists have hijacked the common definition for the very specific application.

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote: There aren't any actual infinities, that's the point. So, going back to your original misunderstanding of potential infinities, positing a potentially infinite past, means it is at every point finite as it is streaming into infinity backwards, which means the number of events between the past and present is at every point finite, which means the past had a beginning. It also contradicts temporal becoming. I'd appreciate it if you would do some research on this.

Yes, there are actual infinities. You simply cannot know for certain.

As to your argument: positing an infinite past, we have a finite number of events between a point in the past and a point in present, but events can still stream backwards. Which means the past had no beginning.

(February 13, 2012 at 11:17 am)genkaus Wrote: Rational stuff that bl ignores as usual.

You do understand that this guy thinks AIG has scientific answers don't you? Trust me, unless you have an ICBM, nothing is going to get through this clown's bozone layer.

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote:

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: The universe did not cause itself - it is the efficient cause. Which means, it itself is causeless.

Sorry, try again. An efficient cause is external to the thing it is causing.

You lost me. Does that mean that God cannot be his own efficient cause? Ah hah! Just as I suspected, you don't find such a wonderfully made 'watch' as God just assembling himself. No sirree. The watch maker must have had a maker!

(February 13, 2012 at 11:17 am)genkaus Wrote: How do you know that? All you can say is that there wouldn't be any life as we know it. That does not mean that there wouldn't be a life at all.

No, I can say from most of those parameters that there wouldn't be any life at all.

(February 13, 2012 at 11:17 am)genkaus Wrote: Why not?

Because more than a few of the parameters would make the Universe absent of any structure, molecules, or existence.

(February 13, 2012 at 11:17 am)genkaus Wrote: Read again, you moron. I did not say that the universe was its own cause. I said that the universe was causeless and therefore the efficient cause of everything within it. The universe is causeless, beginning-less and eternal and that is why it is the efficient cause of everything else.

Round and round we go. All of the evidence points to the Universe having a beginning. As I've shown you here:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks...lenkin.pdf

All of the models which postulate an eternal Universe are fatally flawed. I've also demonstrated an eternal past is logically incoherent. You have no argument except to just assert your position over and over again.

(February 13, 2012 at 11:17 am)genkaus Wrote: Yes, there are actual infinities. You simply cannot know for certain.

If you wish to say that, I will say that there is a God and you simply cannot know for certain.

(February 13, 2012 at 11:17 am)genkaus Wrote: As to your argument: positing an infinite past, we have a finite number of events between a point in the past and a point in present, but events can still stream backwards. Which means the past had no beginning. Which means the past had no beginning

What you're proposing is logically absurd; you cannot say that new past events are being added to the beginning of the series. And it still contradicts temporal becoming, which is not something you get to dismiss out of hand. The past has been actualized and is not merely potential. Time is only travelling forward and not backwards.

---

(February 13, 2012 at 11:34 am)whateverist Wrote:

(February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am)brotherlylove Wrote:

(February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am)genkaus Wrote: The universe did not cause itself - it is the efficient cause. Which means, it itself is causeless.

Sorry, try again. An efficient cause is external to the thing it is causing.

You lost me. Does that mean that God cannot be his own efficient cause? Ah hah! Just as I suspected, you don't find such a wonderfully made 'watch' as God just assembling himself. No sirree. The watch maker must have had a maker!

God has no cause. He is eternal. God was external to the Universe when He created it.