(December 5, 2013 at 11:03 pm)snowtracks Wrote: you need to explain them yourself.

So that you can ignore it while resorting to lame apologetics?

i asked for some non-creations alternative ideas to explain the U.; and not one do i get. so no proofs, no evidence, and not any ideas. thought someone would be chomping at the bit to lay it on the line. probably everyone wanted to say 'nothing' but knew that wouldn't fly.
just exactly what exactly was it you saw in observation that convince you that creation wasn't correct. was it something along the road one day, or on a mountain top; or maybe it some stern aunt that was overly righteous?

I'd have to say my answer any s "I don't know" (and neither do you).

You want to understand what we do know? Start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so no proofs, no evidence

That is religion for you.

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: i asked for some non-creations alternative ideas to explain the U.; and not one do i get.

Liar; you've had page after page of people doing exactly this.

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so no proofs, no evidence, and not any ideas.

Yes, we know your position already. No need to describe it for us.

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: thought someone would be chomping at the bit to lay it on the line. probably everyone wanted to say 'nothing' but knew that wouldn't fly.

No, that's just in your head. But if it makes you feel better about yourself to deride everyone else en masse, who are we to say ye nay. Very sad, though.

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: just exactly what exactly was it you saw in observation that convince you that creation wasn't correct.

Well, among other things, the fact that it explains exactly nothing about how it's supposed to work. The fact that it depends on mountains of lies to propogate. The fact that those who are responsible for selling it have a political agenda for accumulating power and wealth from the gullible without attempting to put in the work necessary to achieve them legitimately. The fact that it is not merely unsupported by the consensus of evidence about reality, it's actually 180° about-face from it. The fact that it leeches off the body of genuine scientific disciplines that actually further human understanding. But saddest of all, the fact that the followers of the faith who want to convince me of its truth are only doing so out of a desperate need to make their magic storybook work.

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: was it something along the road one day, or on a mountain top; or maybe it some stern aunt that was overly righteous?

If you like, yes.

(December 5, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: just exactly what exactly was it you saw in observation that convince you that creation wasn't correct.

Well, among other things, the fact that it explains exactly nothing about how it's supposed to work.

oh my, 'A' for rambling. "supposed to work"? is that suppose to mean it's working but malfunctioning? science tells how it works but that stating the obvious. okay, but still no observation that invalidates intelligent design.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:25 am)snowtracks Wrote: still no observation that invalidates intelligent design.

Nothing to validate it means it is invalidated until it can be validated.

What is so hard about that to understand?

Just because you do not have an answer to something does not mean you get to make up an imaginary one involving a fairy tale being. Not having an answer means you do not have an answer until you do have one.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:25 am)snowtracks Wrote: oh my, 'A' for rambling. "supposed to work"? is that suppose to mean it's working but malfunctioning? science tells how it works but that stating the obvious. okay, but still no observation that invalidates intelligent design.

Okay, you need to actually listen to what another human is saying to you, right now: we don't need to invalidate intelligent design. You need to demonstrate intelligent design; without positive evidence, you have no reason to believe that it's true, and your position- surprise surprise- is irrational.

It's not up to us to disprove every idiotic notion in your head; what, do you think you're some kind of arbiter of reality, where everything you say is true just because you say it?

Quote:If there is time outside of the universe then it may not work in the same way as it does within the universe. It may be possible that effect happens before or concurrently with cause - we simply do not know.

Further- if you are going to bring causality into the discussion then you have to address what God's material cause was for the creation of the universe. In your case you have God as the efficient cause but there would have to be a material cause. We have no examples of efficient cause without a material cause (although we do have examples of the reverse - material cause without efficient cause).

If God created the universe from nothing then that is outside of causality as we understand it and citing causality in your argument undermines your position that God did it.

the cosmological argument for God existence couldn't be used as evidence when the U. was thought to be infinitely old for that would mean an infinite regress of cause and effect transactions which would render a Causal Agent unnecessary. but now the theory of relativity with it's space-time theorems add-ons establishes the U. had a beginning. Therefore the natural realm is limited to a first-order infinity and necessitating a first cause, that's what the scientific evidence shows (yes evidence).

(December 6, 2013 at 12:44 am)snowtracks Wrote: Therefore the natural realm is limited to a first-order infinity and necessitating a first cause, that's what the scientific evidence shows (yes evidence).

First cause is not synonymous with god.