(February 28, 2010 at 11:34 am)Tsidkenu Wrote: Quite the oposit is the case. We have very strong data and evidence on hand, that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it must have a cause.

We have evidence that the universe began to expand at some point. The universe itself has always existed. It did not have a "cause".

---

(February 28, 2010 at 1:33 pm)Watson Wrote: The attribute of love is something which is simplistic in nature, but vast in scope and meaning. When I look around and see that the world is here, that I understand it, that i have the power to do what I will within it, I can think of no other reason for it's existence than that of love.

The Earth exists because of "love"? Oh, gag me! Does the planet Uranus also exist because of "love"? What about Alpha Centauri? Halley's Comet? Black holes, asteroids and quasars? Did that meteor that crashed into the planet 65 million years ago also exist because of "love"?

Yeesh.

---

(February 28, 2010 at 4:58 pm)Watson Wrote: You're just idiotically taking the Bible literally and spewing bullshit because of it.

Just like a Creationist!

(March 1, 2010 at 10:38 am)Thor Wrote: We have evidence that the universe began to expand at some point. The universe itself has always existed.

Whoa! I agree with the first part but we have no proof that the universe always existed.... unless you are privy to some information that i'm not aware of.

(March 1, 2010 at 12:26 pm)Loki_999 Wrote:

(March 1, 2010 at 10:38 am)Thor Wrote: We have evidence that the universe began to expand at some point. The universe itself has always existed.

Whoa! I agree with the first part but we have no proof that the universe always existed.... unless you are privy to some information that i'm not aware of.

I think what he meant is that since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe could have always existed in a timeless state.

(March 1, 2010 at 12:30 pm)tavarish Wrote: I think what he meant is that since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe could have always existed in a timeless state.

Correct! Thanks for the assist!

(February 28, 2010 at 8:31 pm)Watson Wrote: I do not re-cycle anything, nor do I 'pretend I thought of it,' Min. There is nothing which can be thought that has not already bee nthought before. The difference is, I came to the conclusions on my own, without having seen the 'shit' prior to it.

You, on the other hand...

I know. You think you are so fucking unique. Just like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Fred Phelps, etc. The difference is that they had "followers" whereas you are merely trying to create your own little reality out of a bunch of primitive crap.

Believe me. I don't care what you think. But if you start spouting gibberish around here (check the banner on top... ATHEIST FORUM) you are going to hear about it.

---

Quote:I swear, between you and Minimalist, I'm going to have a brain aneurism trying to explain all of this to you.

Certainly not the worst possible outcome!

Relax. I am almost positive that you cannot think that hard.

(March 1, 2010 at 10:38 am)Thor Wrote: We have evidence that the universe began to expand at some point. The universe itself has always existed. It did not have a "cause".

absolute assertions request proves. do you have any ?

(February 28, 2010 at 5:17 pm)Watson Wrote: The Bible isn't a pile of shit, it's a series of demonstrations, and examples, meant to explain how God works.

Of course, because everyone knows the functioning (if it ever means anything) of the Supreme Being can be summarized in a pocket-sized book...comprehensible by humans (who happens to be inside God's creation).
Oh and by the way I'd like to know where those "demonstrations" are.

(February 28, 2010 at 9:46 pm)Watson Wrote: I came to what now? Wrong. I came to the conclusion, by observing reality, that it is entirely within God's nature to do something such as having a son 2000 years ago. That does not necessarily mean it happened, it just means that it could happen.

That's weird, I thought it was all about faith...not about probability.

(March 1, 2010 at 2:36 pm)Tsidkenu Wrote:

(March 1, 2010 at 10:38 am)Thor Wrote: We have evidence that the universe began to expand at some point. The universe itself has always existed. It did not have a "cause".

absolute assertions request proves. do you have any ?

There is no reason to think that the universe hasn't always existed in some form. What reason do you have to think that the universe came into being magically? You think there was no universe at all and then, suddenly, POOF! it came into existence?

(March 1, 2010 at 3:49 pm)Thor Wrote:

(March 1, 2010 at 2:36 pm)Tsidkenu Wrote:

(March 1, 2010 at 10:38 am)Thor Wrote: We have evidence that the universe began to expand at some point. The universe itself has always existed. It did not have a "cause".

absolute assertions request proves. do you have any ?

There is no reason to think that the universe hasn't always existed in some form. What reason do you have to think that the universe came into being magically? You think there was no universe at all and then, suddenly, POOF! it came into existence?

yes, all scientific evidence point toward this scenario.

(March 1, 2010 at 3:49 pm)Thor Wrote:

(March 1, 2010 at 2:36 pm)Tsidkenu Wrote:

(March 1, 2010 at 10:38 am)Thor Wrote: We have evidence that the universe began to expand at some point. The universe itself has always existed. It did not have a "cause".

absolute assertions request proves. do you have any ?

There is no reason to think that the universe hasn't always existed in some form. What reason do you have to think that the universe came into being magically? You think there was no universe at all and then, suddenly, POOF! it came into existence?

I can see that this will be a see-saw of who made the positive claim.

I'd argue that the Big Bang is a credible theory, and based on that, it is possible to posit that before that, time did not exist, therefore there was nothing "before". The universe could have existed in a timeless state and did not require a creator. The laws of nature apply in this universe with respect to time. If time was not applicable, why would the current laws of nature be?

Saying there must have been a cause is like saying "I am building a wall with small bricks, therefore the wall must be small". What is applicable here is not necessarily true of the entirety of existence. The kalam argument does have many fallacious holes in it, as it substitutes and assumes the role of God, but does not give an account for why he is there or why he is subject to nature of his own.