(April 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm)roundsquare Wrote: someone said the big bang is an event in the history of the universe not how the universe came into being. isnt this akin to someone saying my birth is an event that took place in my lifetime not how i came into being.

You could say that. The point is that the universe existed as a singularity, and then the Big Bang was the expansion of that singularity. Space and time expanded, forming the universe. The Big Bang theory does not say how the singularity got there, nor what happened "before" the Big Bang, or even if there was a "before" (since if time started at the Big Bang, there was no "before").

(April 3, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

---

(April 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm)tackattack Wrote: As for the comparison: Do you, as a self-asware entity, consider yourself your parts or the sum of those parts? Probably the latter, "I am me". If god exists, and is self-aware, and on top of that incorporeal, why could you even suppose he has any parts, or sees himself any different. That's why I consider God to be one entity. Because of science we understand some of the laws, axioms and rules of the universe (or suppose them with great support) and compartmentalize that knowledge. I can't help but see it as it's parts. I though research was done that chows the universe started with the big bang and had an end in entropy, so I can't call it eternal either btw.

Why could I suppose that God has parts? Because my rational mind longs for explanation, and I cannot accept that any "self-aware" being doesn't have a reason for being self-aware. For me, there must at least be the "thinking part" of God and the "action part" of God. I should point out at this point that we've both turned towards personal incredulity at this point. My inability to think of God as one single entity and your inability to think of the universe as one single entity are interesting, though ultimately irrelevant things

Oh, and as far as research goes, we know the universe had an expansion, and it is theorized that this expansion was also the expansion of time. What the universe was at the moment of the Big Bang, whether it existed (in a timeless state) before that, or how the Big Bang happened is currently unknown. The Big Bang is an event in the history of the universe, not how the universe came into being.

Quote:The logical step problem is a little dificult. I didn't bring up the God of the Gaps, or who created God arguements. I don't suppose God didn't have a creator, idk if he did or not, or whether he even needed to. God could be an interdimensional, super advanced and incorporeal alien that had a mommy and daddy alien, idk. From our perspective within this universe though, what could have created the universe or disrupted the quantum singularity or even made the singularity should be as far as we could go. To regress into the circular arguement of who created God is irrelevant, faulty and your point, not mine. I didn't even allude that God is eternal, just that he existed outside of space-time prior to the bigbang.

Why should it be as far as we should go? I'm sorry but that just seems to me to be an argument *for* ignorance. So we don't need to know what caused the cause because we make the assumption that God is causeless? I respectfully disagree; I think that argument must be made...it is helpful in showing that placing the answer as "God" doesn't help the original question, it only lengthens it.

---

Personal credulity aside, what would an incorporeal being have as parts? I look at my arms and fingers and yes they're parts. What are the parts of a photon? What are the parts of the ion? It is the most reduced form, pure absolute, intangible but measurable and affecting.

If you want to go further go right ahead, I'll agree to whatever theory your come up with. It will be irrelevant because the only thing that matters in this reality are the things that affect this reality. I'll say God could have had a daddy and mommy, but we're no where advanced enough to get outside our reality more than the cusp, which is why no evidence exists of God's existence. However since some feel he affects this reality, one can surmise the cause of that effect, but to go further would be languishing deep into the unknowable.

Being incorporeal doesn't prevent something from having parts, just as long as those parts are not corporeal, correct? I see nothing in the definition of corporeal to suggest that these beings cannot have parts.

Wikipedia: "Incorporeal beings or objects are not made out of matter in the way a physical, material being or object exists."

As for photons, ions, etc, I suggest you take a look at String theory. Not very testable stuff, but intriguing nonetheless

If you admit that there is no evidence of God's existence, why are you so inclined to go on the feelings of people? What exactly can you surmise about the cause of an effect if there is no evidence to suggest that the cause exists in the first place. Are you putting God in the same place as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the FSM...because I'd be right with you if you were.

So perhaps bringing us back to the original topic, given that you admit there is no evidence, what makes you believe? (this is just an honest question by the way, I don't think I've ever asked you before)

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: Tavarish i appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my points. ok lets get underway. KCA:again you have misconstrued the kca. it does NOT say everything has a cause and the first cause is GOD. This is y your objections miss the target.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cosmol...gument.htm

Cosmological Argument - The Three Premises
According to Craig, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is built upon the following three premises:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Let's take a wild guess what you posit that first cause to be. I'm betting it isn't the cookie monster. This argument has been around since the late 70s in its current form (thanks to William Lane Craig).

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: VALIDITY OF KCA: deduction is widely used and generally trustworthy logic, an example is. 1. animals are made of cells. 2. a dog is an animal. 3. thus a dog is made of cells. the kca follows from this logic and is a logically valid conclusion. yes iam aware that in some cases deduction is spurious but to challenge the kca, you clearly must show that it is spurious.

The KCA first relies on assumption, then builds upon that assumption with logically fallacious statements.

It's something akin to:

1. The average family has 2.5 children.
2. The Smiths are an average family.
3. Therefore, the Smiths must have 2 or 3 children.

or:

1. All birds have beaks.
2. Octopuses have beaks.
3. Therefore an octopus is a bird.


It's simply a deductive fallacy.

I'll explain WHY:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. <-Existence being a tricky word here, i'll elaborate further.

2. The universe began to exist.<- Not necessarily. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. You'll note existence in this form means "entity composed of an association of particles", and does not imply that non-existence is an absolute void of existence, rather a lack of associated particles. I existed as a result of my birth, but I am an entity and comprised of numerous particles, which were not created, and can't be destroyed.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. <- Non-sequitur. The word "existence" is used in two varied senses, and the conclusion is factually false.

I posit this:

1. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
2. The universe (as we intepret it) is comprised of energy.
3. The universe (as we intepret it) cannot be created or destroyed.

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: kca doesnt need to define GOD because it doesnt doesnt make reference to GOD. IT is used as an argument for GOD.

The kalam cosmological argument doesn't need to define God because it is only an argument for God's existence, but makes no reference to him.

Does that make any fucking sense to you?

I want to make an argument for the tooth fairy, but I don't have to define anything, just make an argument that assumes she exists,forgetting the fact that I'm latching on attributes to something that I haven't demonstrated to actually exist.

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: the big bang too is used as an argument for GOD.

Wrong. The Big Bang Theory is meant to give an explanation of the origins of time and matter within our universe. If you can use it for a God argument, I'd like to see the evidence that necessarily makes him responsible for it. No what-ifs and could-bes, I'm talking about something concrete (not necessarily empirical,but something that at least withstands logical fallacy) and reasonable.

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: BUT one would never say that the it must first define GOD.

I would. In order to make the argument valid,you would have to FIRST define God, THEN apply this argument to him. What good is making an argument for an entity with attributes you can't specify or give a credible account for?

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: THE KCA simply reasons that the universe must have a cause in keeping with the causal principle, because it had a beginning, that is there was a first moment of its existence. there was a moment when no space, no vacuum, no time no matter no energy existed hence the universe, which is simply the sum of these phenomena had a starting point.

---

1. How do you know this?

2. How do you know energy isn't eternal?

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: ID: TAVARISH you say that ID fails because replication and enviromental stressors account for the emergence of specificall complex structures pretty conclusively. my question where is the concrete evidence IN NATURE not in a computer model that accounts for specified complexity? when i asked for evidence you linked me to a paper studying a genetic algorithm, i expected some real evidence from nature.

Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift In the Lab
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...50&tid=350

It really is apparent that you don't have a working understanding of the concept.

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: i am compelled to conclude that the absence of examples of upward evolution from nature drives evolutionists to resort computer simulations.

Does this make evolution any less valid?

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: so as long as simulations are accepted as support for evolution as a skeptic i can rest assured that no concrete evidence for the monkey-man type of evolution has been found.

I'll take it you've never been to a natural history museum? Ever hear of the fossil record - you know, the bones God put in the ground to test our faith?

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: the exaggerated faith shown to computer simulations by evolutionists is noteworthy since they frequently cant even predict next weeks weather accurately.

Evolutionists are meteorologists? WTF?

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: also simulations need to be testdd in the real world to verify their validity so far simulations that claim to provide insight into evolution r massively oversimplified caricatures of the real world.

---

So here's how I posit your understanding of evolutionary science:

1. Scientists come up with the theory of evolution.
2. They all agree to uphold it no matter what. Obvious agenda.
3. After they can't find evidence, they make inaccurate computer models and take it as gospel.
4. ???
5. Profit.

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: GENETIC SIMILARITY: TAVARISH, genetic similarity between organisms can be used to support both ID/creation science, so its a tie.

Yup, who gives a shit what side actual evidence supports. It can be used to support the Invisible Pink Unicorn as well,is it a 3-way tie in that case?

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: also note if there were not strong genetic similarities between us and other organisms we could only eat other humans. for the reason that if every other organism was fundamentally different genetically hence biochemically, there would be no way for us to digest them because their amino acids, sugars etc would be different from the ones in our bodies.

1. How to do you know this information is correct?
2. What relevance does this have to anything we're discussing?
3. We share similarities with all living things on Earth, does that mean we can eat everything?

(April 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm)roundsquare Wrote: ok. here is a link showing how genes r challenging the evolutionary tree of life.

---

Dang it i cant posts any links until i have 10 posts.

Fiddlesticks.

tavarish wrote: "I would. In order to make the argument valid,you would have to FIRST define God, THEN apply this argument to him. What good is making an argument for an entity with attributes you can't specify or give a credible account for?"

Precisely why I don't get mixed up in these heady bullshit arguments based completely on assumptions. tavarish, kudos for having the patience of the biblical Job to even attempt to explain some of this stuff to roundsquare. I share alot of the same ideas you do on this matter but don't have the patience to put it down in writing.

I too think that adding attributes to a god whose very essence and existence is unknown is ridiculous and nothing more than mere window dressing since it is not based on facts but rather assumptions. I love the way Christians in their attempt to make their arguments sound intellectual feel the need to ascribe and define everything in existence to their god without first defining their god and all his attributes. Like I like to say it is nothing more than ass backwards reasoning.

(April 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm)roundsquare Wrote: someone said the big bang is an event in the history of the universe not how the universe came into being.

Who is this "someone"?

(April 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm)roundsquare Wrote: isnt this akin to someone saying my birth is an event that took place in my lifetime not how i came into being.

Since you were "created" at conception(that's when your mommy and daddy had sex)

and your birth occurred nine months later, yes, it is just an event in your life.

(April 3, 2010 at 6:35 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I would like to read Miller's response to this article. My question to Luskin would be: How could chromosomal fusion within a population (at any time) not bring about a new species? Luskin suggests that at some point in the existence of Homo 'genus', there was a fusion that did not create a new species. More reasonably, Miller, if i'm not mistaken, suggests that there was a fusion in a population (of an ancestral species that of the Pan genus and the Homo genus) that created two new species, one which was probably the ancestor or our species. Later Luskin suggests that the fusion could have (no evidence involved) occurred 10,000 years ago in our own species without creating any physiological or morphological changes which doesn't make sense since such a fusion intuitively or logically should produce some change.

Rather... I question the notion of precisely what a 'species' is. Is not that description entirely subjective?

Those who understand nihilistic existentialism can just skip over this next part



Depending on how the classification of "species" is defined... a new species may or may not have been created by a "fusion" (and that may mean that the species has indeed changed, but not enough for us to stop calling them the same species, take for example the glass that has been chipped or cracked... not enough of a change for it to disbecome a cup, but a change to that cup nonetheless (for it is now a chipped cup or a cracked cup ))... and as long as were talking science without evidence I will say GTFO until he has some, or can provide some rational as to why it might have occurred... or more importantly: mattered.

TAVARISH thanks for responding. now i have to observe that your points just keep getting accentric, and im also sensing a bit fury in the way you r expressing yourself. look im not here to gun for you so dont look @ me as n enemy we r both human beings, lets just enjoy a nice friendly discussion.

---

KCA: SHOWING counter examples of spurious deduction does not in anyway take away from the kca, accept maybe in your head. you have to tackle the kca on its own merits, because not all deduction is erroneous. you attempted to do by stating that energy had always existed and to give a boost to your statement you cited the law of conservation of energy. what this shows is your ignorance regarding the big bang. the big bang doesnt contravene the energy laws by holding that energy was created which you disagree with, because the energy laws only apply within the universe, just like gravity this is a physical law and has no application outside the physical universe. the physical laws govern everything in spacetime, not the origin of spacetime itself. energy requires a medium e.g. vacuum. there was however no vacuum, no space prior to the the big bang. there was a point when all the distances in the universe was shrunk to zero. thus in short the law is not violated by the big bang because the whole spacetime arena in which it holds came into being.

---

The law only holds for isolated systems like the universe, which did not exist prior to the singularity, because there was no universe no isolated system, no system at all.

Thus your objections oncemore have turned up to be nothing more than hot air. again the kca doesnt need to define GOD, it doesnt make any reference to GOD, where in its premises and conclusion does it mention GOD. reread my post tackling this issue to see why, and i have been using the big bang all along to argue that the universe had a beginning and that its cause is GOD, so i am using it as an argument for GOD. the vast majority of cosmologist hold to the big bang theory and according to the big bang theory energy was created. its one of the tenents of the theory.

---

See http:/www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Big_bang.html

---

i meant to say tenets, not tenents of BBT

(April 4, 2010 at 12:16 am)Tiberius Wrote:

---

Being incorporeal doesn't prevent something from having parts, just as long as those parts are not corporeal, correct? I see nothing in the definition of corporeal to suggest that these beings cannot have parts.

Wikipedia: "Incorporeal beings or objects are not made out of matter in the way a physical, material being or object exists."

As for photons, ions, etc, I suggest you take a look at String theory. Not very testable stuff, but intriguing nonetheless

If you admit that there is no evidence of God's existence, why are you so inclined to go on the feelings of people? What exactly can you surmise about the cause of an effect if there is no evidence to suggest that the cause exists in the first place. Are you putting God in the same place as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the FSM...because I'd be right with you if you were.

So perhaps bringing us back to the original topic, given that you admit there is no evidence, what makes you believe? (this is just an honest question by the way, I don't think I've ever asked you before)

---

I just can't see any distinguishable parts in a ball of energy. How could one even distinguish parts if they're incorporeal? Surely we can't distinguish parts by use alone.
I'm not willing to go on the feelings of people, they're my own observances. There's no possible way to have evidence for something existing outside the known universe. It would be fairly easy to set aside my faith and claim there is no God, but I've seen too much in my experience I count as evidence for God's influence in reality.What I call God, could be a ball of dark energy outisde the universe, the IPU or Odin. IDK, but I gather God's attributes from what I've seen from him interacting with reality and since we haven't seen direct evidence of God yet then I'm assuming he resides outside the known universe. Those attributes are reflected in the God of Christendom, so that's why I chose this denomination over others I've tried. I don't believe God exists, I have faith in that. I do however believe that God does affect reality, and while subjective, I see evidence for it, although not up to scientific standards.