(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: theism has no God of the gap problem.

LIE!

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the U. is here, and has a designer.

Citation required

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: some can't accept it because they're in the dead zone asking the child's question: well, who made God? (easily answered, because God is self-evident).

Citation required

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: richard dawkins in his 'God delusion' book states the U. is improbable, making the God hypothesis even more improbable.

ok...

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: he acknowledges the U. is here to his credit,

LIE

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: and we are here; therefore, there must be other universes and ours happens to be one that has the right combination of things in place (anthropic principle). so his answer is an explanation that appeals to the multiverse which is crammed with trillions of universes spinning and twisting to hit on the right combination.

That's one way to work around the fine tuning argument...
It is as much a speculation as the god hypothesis, if you ask me...

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so what do you have to explain the U.? now is your chance to set the record straight. ready, set, go.

Here's one possibility:




Can I be sure that this is IT? no... can you be sure that a deity is IT?

Lawrence Krauss is awesome!

(October 10, 2013 at 10:35 am)LostLocke Wrote: Wow, where to start....

(October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

It's just science, not "atheistic". The age of the universe has nothing to do with a god, and there are plenty of Christians who believe in the age/origin of the universe as science says.

(October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The current “theory” is that the universe came into being from some explosion called the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang theory does not match smoothness of the cosmic background radiation. So the theory of Inflation was added to the standard Big Bang. That is the latest conjecture of modern science.

CBMR was discovered because of the big bang, not in spite of it.
Inflation wasn't "added". Expansion is still occurring and at an ever increasing rate. Space itself is increasing, everything is moving away from everything.

(October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Now there are many problems with this “answer” to the origin of the universe. If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang violates a number of principle and laws of science. It violates conservation of mass-energy. The energy went from nothing to all the energy of the universe. It violates cause and effect. Nothing never just explodes and becomes something. It violates all observations, since nothing never just explodes into something. It also does not explain the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

No one says the universe came from nothing.

(October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: If something existed before the Big Bang, then the origin question is not answered at all. If the universe always existed, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all order disappeared an infinite time ago. But that is not the case. Also there is still no explanation of the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

How can all order disappear an infinite amount of time ago when the universe as we see it today has only been around for ~14by?
The singularity is what existed "before" the big bang. And "before" does not really work in this context since our known, singular dimension of time also began at the big bang. IE, for all practical purposes there is no such thing as "before" before the big bang. It's the same principle as saying that at true north there is no such direction as "north", no matter what direction you walk you can only go south.

Spacio-temporal reasoning and eternity are hard things to mingle.

Something can't have a temporal 'before' in terms of time whenever time didn't exist 'before' (as you say). The concept of eternity, requires that there is no 'beginning', only a constant 'being' - an everlasting 'present moment'.

It's really, really difficult to think about these things with our conscious focus only being able to consciously experience a now, as well. We can conceptualize futures and pasts but we're never really 'in them', we're only ever in the present.

Trying to put a place without time itself in my minds eye is pretty much impossible.

(December 22, 2013 at 12:54 am)snowtracks Wrote: the atheists believe in nothing because they have nothing.

Fuck off idiot.

Jeez, Snowy's just resorting to blindfire now in the hopes of hitting something, is he? "That composer guy," is deliberately ignoring some of his more egregious one sentence defecations, because they don't really bear thinking about, but there is this:

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: theism has no God of the gap problem.

I guess you could say that, if you're willing to be completely ignorant of the progress of science and the degree to which religious claims have had to retract themselves into the blank spots in scientific knowledge over the years. Really, it's very telling that now christianity has had to retreat to possibly the largest, most general unanswered question, in universal origins: all the other things they used to claim were the hand of the creator at work, have been shown not to be. They've only got the big one left.

That is the god of the gaps argument, by definition. And it's all you've done the entire time you've been here, yellow snow.

Quote: the U. is here, and has a designer.

Only children demand things be true based on nothing.

Quote: some can't accept it because they're in the dead zone asking the child's question: well, who made God?

I think a quick look back through the thread will show that the question you've been asked most is "what is your evidence for god?" So, way to project; good thing to see you know your way around strawmen.

Quote: (easily answered, because God is self-evident).

Ah ha! Here we go, evidence that Snowy is literally out of arguments, because he's gone to the laziest possible justification for anything. "It just is." The same bullshit presuppositionalists use, the same cowardly dodge we get from all those "in your heart you know there's a god, you just don't want to admit it!" types.

To which my answer is now, and will always be: fuck off, douchebag. Come back when you're ready to join the adult table and argue like you're out of fucking diapers.

Quote: richard dawkins in his 'God delusion' book states the U. is improbable, making the God hypothesis even more improbable. he acknowledges the U. is here to his credit, and we are here; therefore, there must be other universes and ours happens to be one that has the right combination of things in place (anthropic principle).

Except that there's no justification for assuming that there's even one right set of conditions; that assumes from the beginning that there's a goal being shot for, which is just question begging.

Quote:so his answer is an explanation that appeals to the multiverse which is crammed with trillions of universes spinning and twisting to hit on the right combination. so what do you have to explain the U.? now is your chance to set the record straight. ready, set, go.

Simple: there is no "right" combination, because there is no "correct" universe. The conditions of the universe shook out the way they did, and it is fortuitous to us that such conditions support life. If they didn't... so what? We might not be here to see that, but that doesn't mean other life wouldn't be, nor does it mean that this universe somehow failed. To say that the universe is here, and that we're here in it, doesn't mean that this is somehow destiny; on a cosmic timeline our existence may just be a brief, transitory moment of light in the darkness, or one of many such lights.

Positing a designer for all this requires evidence that there is one. And you, snowtracks, have failed to accomplish this in a profound and unambiguous way. You're fooling nobody.

Yes he is. He's fooling himself and hoping desperately that he can convince someone else so as to make himself feel justified in his folly.

(December 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so what do you have to explain the U.? now is your chance to set the record straight. ready, set, go.

You're asing me to explain how the universe came into existance? Not my field, my friend. I mean, I like science, too, but my field is more focused on biology (and if you want to talk about evolution, I'm more than willing to go there). What Dawkins is getting into seems to go more into physics, especially astro physics. I'm just going to trust him on this one.

But that's beside the point because most physicists I've seen all agree on one important thing: we don't know how the universe was formed. And that's a good thing because admitting that we don't know or that we can be wrong keeps science looking for answers.

On the other hand, the Bible and religion seems to say they already have all the answers and holds to those answers even when they search for evidence and the evidence disagrees wih them.

And since I'm not the one saying I know how the universe was formed, I think the question needs to be directed back at the asker. You're implying you know how the universe was formed, right? Can you prove it?

Asserting the existence of a creator god without a shred of evidence is nothing more than a dishonest way of saying, "I have no fucking idea."

asked for an atheistic explanation to compare with creation, and all i get is a krauss video (which i have all ready viewed) and page after page of whining and excuses. fast drawing the conclusion that my post are being received by thick headed neanderthals that exist to take potshots at a model that's in place and makes sense from the get go. if you find God distasteful, tell what you are willing to swallow. how can you not be embarrassed by the responses posted? a simple request goes out, and the landscape gets littered with trash. oh and by the way, krauss does not rule out a deistic view of nature; i have his U. nothing book right in front of me. funny, guy comes out with book that tells you about 'nothing' and you jump, before you jumped did you ask 'how high'?

(December 22, 2013 at 9:24 pm)snowtracks Wrote: asked for an atheistic explanation to compare with creation, and all i get is a krauss video (which i have all ready viewed) and page after page of whining and excuses. fast drawing the conclusion that my post are being received by thick headed neanderthals that exist to take potshots at a model that's in place and makes sense from the get go. if you find God distasteful, tell what you are willing to swallow. how can you not be embarrassed by the responses posted? a simple request goes out, and the landscape gets littered with trash. oh and by the way, krauss does not rule out a deistic view of nature; i have his U. nothing book right in front of me. funny, guy comes out with book that tells you about 'nothing' and you jump, before you jumped did you ask 'how high'?

Why are you even here?