(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Any debate about proofs is senseless, since there are no proofs in regard of these issues. I say it over and over again. Stop asking for proves. Instead , make the right philosphical question : how can we best explain our existence ?

Science is the best method of explaining our existence and that is based on proof. You can't answer the question at all in any manner that is meaningful without testable and repeatable evidence.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Why are you asking for a scientific paper ? Why shall science provide all answers , even to questions, which are beyond the realm of science ? Why do you not accept, what is accepted by most scientists, namely, the universe had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang ? proably, because it does not fit your preconceived bias, no God shall exist, and since a beginning of the Universe is a hint of causation, you avoid this hypotheses. To believe, the universe had a absolute beginning, stands perfectly on rational ground , and is supported by many secular scientists, as already shown.

Because no reputable scientist is saying that the universe began in the same sense that you are. They acknowledge that we only really know about the big bang to a point and if you're literate with astronomy and I'm talking about the papers, books, and speeches done by physicists who are literate in this topic and not about a group of religious people who think that their belief if something is the same thing as knowing something.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

That's nice. If he makes a peer reviewed paper that's accepted by the scientific community at large on that topic, then let me know. Until then, his claims are quite unsubstantiated and not too indiscreetly tainted with theology, which is itself an exercise in imagination and not science.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: The Beginning of Time

And in that same paper, Hawking mentions the following:

Stephan Hawking "The Beginning of Time Wrote:At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.

Note that Hawking makes several direct statements about what was before the big bang in the sense that he is not stating that the universe was created at the big bang, but rather the universe as we understand it began at the big bang.
As I recall, I've said this exact thing before, the universe began in the manner to which we understand it at the big bang, which is to say nothing of anything prior to this event. You have postulated based on nothing that not only did the universe begin from nothing, but a hyper-intelligence that is capable of creating vast amounts of energy from literally nothing is more simple than a singularity. Bullhokey.

Hawking even specifically refutes the notion that an outside influence had any direct effect on the universe.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Ban..._come_from

And how credible is this answer supposed to be? Why did you even bring it up because whoever made that answer disagrees with you.
In the answer states: According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure.
Emphasis mine.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

I don't know where you got what was stated above, but this clearly isn't the case anymore, if it even was to begin with.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: the example , i have shown , no stimulus made that person have this out of body experience, Indeed, following explanation shows this :

You've missed the point - science has proven that a cluster of neurons can be stimulated to give an out-of-body experience. Just because the experiment had a direct stimulation of that cluster in one manner or another doesn't mean they can't be stimulated naturally.
My point of even bringing up those papers is to prove that those anecdotes you keep bringing up are far more likely to be explained by that cluster of neurons being stimulated in a natural manner (in other words, the brain, trauma, or some other method) instead of a neurologist poking around in someone's skull being a necessary component for that or some supernatural explaination.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: It must be noted the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

There are many kinds of sciences but I have no idea what on earth you're talking about.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: When it comes to historical sciences, what we can do, are , as shown above, educated guesses. In that sense, we can believe, aka faith, a supernatural explanation fits best the evidence, or a natural explanation. Thats the controversy about creation x evolution. Both positions are in the end based on guess and faith.

Controversey on creation v evolution? Controversey amongst whom? Evolution has been science for as long as it's been around. Creationism is a belief held on by superstitious people who choose to reject evidence to the contrary despite no evidence supporting creationism at all.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed.

They aren't allowed because they're not scientific. Science has never been redefined to exclude supernaturalism at any point in time beyond an attempt to explain ignorance rationally by people who prefer an explaination instead of an honest answer.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Again. You need to make a distinction between operational and historical science.

I prefer to acknowledge things that exist rather than whatever methodology that allows people to make up answers and accept them as science.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: I have asked you to present more options. Do you have any ? If you don't , you agree automatically with my assertion.

So you answer one false dilemma by presenting another? If I can't provide a specific answer you want I'm automatically wrong and I agree with you?
If it makes you feel better, you can assert whatever you want. It doesn't make you right.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

This is assinine. A thinking entity is not simple at all - it's a complex process that humans barely understand as it is and yet a conciousness far more powerful than ours is supposed to be simpler than a dense point of energy? Bullhockey.
This is entirely an attempt by theists to redefine what intelligence, conciousness, god, and whatever in order to fit this specific arguement, which is itself a logical fallacy called 'moving the goalposts'.

(August 17, 2010 at 2:53 am)rybak303 Wrote: I have often heard creationists say that everything in existence must have been caused by something else thus leading to a chain of causes all the way to God Himself. To which atheists respond, “Then what caused God to be in existence?” But this passage from a prominent Christian theologian refutes this common atheist counter to creationism.”

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.”

Furthermore. . . . .

Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything). And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang) therefore infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature. Within Nature everything is in relation to everything else, everything is interdependent, nothing is independent of the system as a whole, nothing can be truly added or taken away. Therefore within Nature things must exist as spontaneously regenerating patterns and designs, including life. Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole. Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole. Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence. Therefore, freewill, like the causation of time and Nature, is beyond time and Nature, it is not Natural but supernatural. Since mankind has freewill which is supernatural, he is therefore at least partly supernatural. Mankind is therefore both Natural and supernatural, the body and the spirit.

That post is evidence of stupid.

Nogodaloud, you have yet to provide a serious argument, you are just running away with the goal post, and you are the one using intentionally dishonest arguments:

1 - You deliberately post links of evangelical sites to provide evidence for your scientific claims, as if those could hold any credibility, They do not, except for deluded Christians. This proves that you are not interested in making any serious claim.

2 - You practice the "Move the goal post" fallacy on every post, diverting any debate endlessly, disregarding the total and utter debunking of your arguments by several people. This further proves my point that you are not interested in a serious debate, but to rub your ego, trying to convince yourself that your delusions are true.

3 - When people point out your baseless assertions, you simply ignore them and keep repeating yourself, as if in repeating enough times you could turn them true.

4 - When using science, you cherry pick the facts of it that suit your argument, deliberately ignoring others that do not suit it so well. A good example of this is you talking about macro evolution.

5 - You have done multiple times "quote mining" a very known creationist tactic and very dishonest one.

6 - When one calls you on your dishonesty, you cry you are being insulted when that is not the case.

This leads me to believe that you are nothing but a troll, not seeking rational debate, but confirmation on your delusion of grandure, and this saddens me, because people here have been honestly trying to debate you, not receiving the same from you. You come here with a closed mind, and there can be no debate under that premise.

@TheDarkestOfAngels: kudos for your posts, you are very articulate and a very honest debater, If I could I would give you one more rep, but we can only give one.

(August 23, 2010 at 2:21 am)LastPoet Wrote: Nogodaloud, you have yet to provide a serious argument, you are just running away with the goal post, and you are the one using intentionally dishonest arguments:

that is a common practice on atheist boards : trying to discredit the counterpart, accusing it to be dishonest. Let's see who is dishonest in this case.

Quote:1 - You deliberately post links of evangelical sites to provide evidence for your scientific claims, as if those could hold any credibility, They do not, except for deluded Christians. This proves that you are not interested in making any serious claim.

How do you KNOW christians are deluded ? you don't. Historical sciences are based on probabilities. You cannot KNOW how things in the past happened, therefore you cannot accuse someone, that does not share your opinion, to be deluded. Secondly, the stated webpages do present , what secular scientists said. Therefore, your argument looses completely ground.

And third, your answer just shows your bias and YOUR dishonesty.

Quote:2 - You practice the "Move the goal post" fallacy on every post, diverting any debate endlessly, disregarding the total and utter debunking of your arguments by several people. This further proves my point that you are not interested in a serious debate, but to rub your ego, trying to convince yourself that your delusions are true.

more baseless accusations.

Quote:3 - When people point out your baseless assertions, you simply ignore them and keep repeating yourself, as if in repeating enough times you could turn them true.

which baseless assertion exactly ?

Quote:4 - When using science, you cherry pick the facts of it that suit your argument, deliberately ignoring others that do not suit it so well. A good example of this is you talking about macro evolution.

thats exactly what it is. Darwinists should make a differenciation, when they talk evolution is a fact.

Quote:5 - You have done multiple times "quote mining" a very known creationist tactic and very dishonest one.

what exactly is dishonest about it ? you can do it as well, to make your point. No problem with me.

Quote:6 - When one calls you on your dishonesty, you cry you are being insulted when that is not the case.

Yes, you should STOP attacking ME. Attack my arguments, if they do not please you. And in the end, if you think, i am dishonest, you are saying, you deserve someone honest. then you should take your consequences, and search for other, honest theists, to debate with. Nobody obligates you to debate me.

Quote:This leads me to believe that you are nothing but a troll,

I see. Now starting with open personal insults. How about change your tactics ? Such tactics say more about YOU, than about me, and do not help your case at all.

I guess you stop attacking me personally, otherwise, i will stop answering you.

Okay, NoGodAloud. To prove your case, first show that something cannot come from nothing, without merely asserting it or pointing to our experience, for our experience is irrelevant outside the universe. I suspect that you'll have difficulty with this, but I'd like you to try all the same. Then, show that it is impossible for the universe to have existed in some form forever, or as an infinite series of universes. Then, show why God is the best explanation.

Quote:Darwinists should make a differenciation, when they talk evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a scientific fact though.

Quote:what exactly is dishonest about it ? you can do it as well, to make your point. No problem with me.

Quote mining is dishonest because you are taking what people have said out of the context in which they said it. Like the Darwin quote about the eye, where he says he cannot see any way for it to have evolved. Creationists point to this to make the point that even Darwin doubted his belief in evolution. The problem is, the quote is only partial, and if you place it back into its original context, you can see that Darwin was talking about possible objections to his theory, and he goes on to say that he doesn't think it is a valid one.