Big Bang Theory

[popeyespappy]

It doesn't matter whether you accept logical fact. It's still logical fact.

How can a physical cause exist before physics begins - in order to cause physics into existence? The notion is obviously absurd.
How can some infinitely dense zero-sized pellet simply exist out 'there' where 'there' doesn't yet exist? THERE IS NO SPACE.

You need to come to grips with the actual science and mathematical proofs.
You are appealing to wild speculations of Atheist Materialists wishing to explain around proven science. The absolute physical beginning is mathematically proven beyond all mathematical doubt.
You have no evidence or justification whatsoever to believe that physics explains the beginning of the existence of physics.

Per your unanswered question:
I don't need to prove a specific epistemology of God to demonstrate that the common attributes of God are necessary and in evidence to sufficiently explain the Ontology of a physical Universe that began to exist.
In other words, your Epitemological 'question' is an irrelevant red-herring meant to distract from the important Ontological question in contention.

I need to come to grips with science? That’s actually funny. The Big Bang model makes no claims that there were no energy, matter or physical laws prior to the Big Bang. It is a theory that attempts to explain what has happened since an initial expansion from an as of yet not understood singularity. It says spacetime as we understand it and a little bit later the physical laws that apply to the current universe began with the Big Bang not that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. That there was nothing other than your immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agent is an unsupported assertion posited by you. I’m merely pointing out there are alternatives to your unsupported hypothesis. These alternatives include a standard model that exists as part of a larger multiverse, and other models such as the Rost model which posits it is the universe itself that is eternal. One of these alternative is just as probable as your hypothesis.

As far as Ontological versus Epistemological I don’t see it as irrelevant at all. Your profile says you are a Christian. As a Christian you don’t believe in just any god. You believe in a specific God. If you believe in the existence of a specific God and argue that the universe was created by god then it would be intellectually dishonest of you to argue for some god that is not yours. I’m just asking you to provide evidence that the God you believe in is the first cause you claim must exist.

Edited because I fucked up the quote tags...

[Truth Matters]

Suppose for the sake of argument that we accept that the universe had an intelligent first cause( which I'm not BTW, you have yet to provide any actual evidence that this is the case).

Now prove that it is in fact your god that is responsible.

Why? I don't need to. We are discussing an ontological question.
I don't need to get distracted defending a narrow epistemological position that has no relevance to the ontological question.

I'de be happy to take up your questions separately, but not as a red-herring distraction away from the Ontology in question.

[Zen Badger]

Suppose for the sake of argument that we accept that the universe had an intelligent first cause( which I'm not BTW, you have yet to provide any actual evidence that this is the case).

Now prove that it is in fact your god that is responsible.

Why? I don't need to. We are discussing an ontological question.
I don't need to get distracted defending a narrow epistemological position that has no relevance to the ontological question.

I'de be happy to take up your questions separately, but not as a red-herring distraction away from the Ontology in question.

You are arguing for the existence of god, by extension... your particular brand of god.
It is not a distraction, it is relevant.

[jonb]

@Truth Matters

So you use Penrose to vouch your position, but dismiss him as an atheist speculator when his views diverge from your own.

[Truth Matters]

Per your unanswered question:
I don't need to prove a specific epistemology of God to demonstrate that the common attributes of God are necessary and in evidence to sufficiently explain the Ontology of a physical Universe that began to exist.
In other words, your Epitemological 'question' is an irrelevant red-herring meant to distract from the important Ontological question in contention.

No. I mean YOUR attempt to create an epistemological distraction has no relevance THIS ONTOLOGY.

I'm not allowing you to divert from the relevant argument into irrelevant tangential questions.

I need to come to grips with science? That’s actually funny. The Big Bang model makes no claims that there were no energy, matter or physical laws prior to the Big Bang. It is a theory that attempts to explain what has happened since an initial expansion from an as of yet not understood singularity. It says spacetime as we understand it and a little bit later the physical laws that apply to the current universe began with the Big Bang not that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. That there was nothing other than your immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agent is an unsupported assertion posited by you. I’m merely pointing out there are alternatives to your unsupported hypothesis. These alternatives include a standard model that exists as part of a larger multiverse, and other models such as the Rost model which posits it is the universe itself that is eternal. One of these alternative is just as probable as your hypothesis.

You are speaking of the physics of the Big Bang. Yes, the physical science cannot speak to the conditions causally antecedent to the beginning of physics. It's beyond the scope of science.
However, it would be flatly incorrect to pretend the model doesn't recognize an absolute physical beginning occurred. It's been the standard model and has been mathematically proven.

These wildly speculative 'alternatives' are not scientific Theory (capital T). In fact they enjoy absolutely no basis in observational science, testing or other verification. They exist without a shred of confirmation or evidence. To put them on par with the highly confirmed scientifically validated Big Bang Theory is simply not justified. Quite frankly, they exist due to the Naturalistic metaphysical beliefs of the theoreticians who desperately want to give plausible deniability to the actual science. They understand well the Theistic implications of Big Bang and Fine Tuning confirmations.
Unfortunately, too many people don't know the difference between confirmed science and speculative stories told by 'scientists'

As far as Ontological versus Epistemological I don’t see it as irrelevant at all. Your profile says you are a Christian. As a Christian you don’t believe in just any god. You believe in a specific God. If you believe in the existence of a specific God and argue that the universe was created by god then it would be intellectually dishonest of you to argue for some god that is not yours. I’m just asking you to provide evidence that the God you believe in is the first cause you claim must exist.

a) I'm not arguing for some 'other God'. My Christian epistemology of God is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the scientific evidence. Can you provide any basis to claim otherwise?

b) Why would differing epistemologies of God matter? Differing epistemologies of God does not mean different (multiple) Gods (Ontology). Any epistemology of God is mutually exclusive with the Atheist Ontological position. Any monotheistic God fits well with the evidence.

---

@Truth Matters

So you use Penrose to vouch your position, but dismiss him as an atheist speculator when his views diverge from your own.

I trust Penrose as a scientist. I don't trust any Atheist to accurately represent to the metaphysical implications of the science. I am absolutely certain Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku prostitute their professional integrity to the services of Atheism.
Recently, Michio Kaku was on CNN claiming that Higgs Boson particles have some implications for cosmological origins, 'disproving God' was just naked lying of the highest order. He knows what he said is false. Lawrence Krauss claims a Universe 'from nothing' could happen via the quantum vacuum. Yet, any novice physicist knows vacuum energy is not Nothing. Hawking peddles a 'no boundaries' proposal hoping to give an illusion of an infinite Universe - absolutely irrelevant to the fact that our Universe has a proven finite past. Penrose steps on Hawking by proving that M-Theory universes would necessarily be much smaller than our Universe...
Their craziness and propaganda is not science.
The science is what matters

---

Why? I don't need to. We are discussing an ontological question.
I don't need to get distracted defending a narrow epistemological position that has no relevance to the ontological question.

I'de be happy to take up your questions separately, but not as a red-herring distraction away from the Ontology in question.

You are arguing for the existence of god, by extension... your particular brand of god.
It is not a distraction, it is relevant.

No, I'm not arguing for a 'brand of God'. I'm arguing for the necessary attributes of a monotheistic God.

Why do you insist we distract off into irrelevant epistemologies when you have failed to defeat my primary ontology?

I'm arguing that some car must have left the burnout marks in front of my house - probably my buddy's Chevelle. You deny that a car must have left those marks and offer no plausible explanation for how the skid marks got there. Instead, you demand I must prove it was a blue 1970 Chevelle SS that left those skid marks. Nonsense!

[jonb]

I trust Penrose as a scientist. I don't trust any Atheist to accurately represent to the metaphysical implications of the science. I am absolutely certain Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku prostitute their professional integrity to the services of Atheism.
Recently, Michio Kaku was on CNN claiming that Higgs Boson particles have some implications for cosmological origins, 'disproving God' was just naked lying of the highest order. He knows what he said is false. Lawrence Krauss claims a Universe 'from nothing' could happen via the quantum vacuum. Yet, any novice physicist knows vacuum energy is not Nothing. Hawking peddles a 'no boundaries' proposal hoping to give an illusion of an infinite Universe - absolutely irrelevant to the fact that our Universe has a proven finite past. Penrose steps on Hawking by proving that M-Theory universes would necessarily be much smaller than our Universe...
Their craziness and propaganda is not science.
The science is what matters

So you cherry pick,

This seems to be your consistent theme.
You interpret the bable to suit yourself,
You interpret terms to suit yourself.
You interpret science to suit yourself.
You use scientists views to suit yourself.
And no surprise,
You have a view that suits you.


Sorry kid your blinkers are not even pretty, you have nothing of interest to say.

[Kirbmarc]

Yes, the physical science cannot speak to the conditions causally antecedent to the beginning of physics. It's beyond the scope of science.

Cosmology is science, and part of cosmology deals with the origins of the uinverse and what was before it.

They understand well the Theistic implications of Big Bang and Fine Tuning confirmations.

Fine Tuning is a logical fallacy. It assumes that world was created for carbon-based life, when it's carbon-based life that adapts to the world.

I am absolutely certain Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku prostitute their professional integrity to the services of Atheism.

I'd love to see your scientific credentials.

Michio Kaku was on CNN claiming that Higgs Boson particles have some implications for cosmological origins, 'disproving God' was just naked lying of the highest order. He knows what he said is false.

You seem to know what Michio Kaku thinks better than him. Do you have any supernatural powers?

Yet, any novice physicist knows vacuum energy is not Nothing.

That's because "nothingess" doesn't exist. The universe could have started via quantum vacuum. Krauss was using a metaphore to explain his theory in layman's terms.

Hawking peddles a 'no boundaries' proposal hoping to give an illusion of an infinite Universe - absolutely irrelevant to the fact that our Universe has a proven finite past.

Our universe may not be all that exists.

My Christian epistemology of God is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the scientific evidence. Can you provide any basis to claim otherwise?

Your Christian epistemolgy claims that a dead body came back to life. This isn't consistent with scientific evidence.

Moreover, the unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics disproves the idea of a "design" behind the universe. It's impossible to implement a design in an universe that obeys to quantum mechanics.

[Truth Matters]

Responding to everything while answering nothing is not a refutation.
You need more than noise. You need an argument.

---

I trust Penrose as a scientist. I don't trust any Atheist to accurately represent to the metaphysical implications of the science. I am absolutely certain Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku prostitute their professional integrity to the services of Atheism.
Recently, Michio Kaku was on CNN claiming that Higgs Boson particles have some implications for cosmological origins, 'disproving God' was just naked lying of the highest order. He knows what he said is false. Lawrence Krauss claims a Universe 'from nothing' could happen via the quantum vacuum. Yet, any novice physicist knows vacuum energy is not Nothing. Hawking peddles a 'no boundaries' proposal hoping to give an illusion of an infinite Universe - absolutely irrelevant to the fact that our Universe has a proven finite past. Penrose steps on Hawking by proving that M-Theory universes would necessarily be much smaller than our Universe...
Their craziness and propaganda is not science.
The science is what matters

So you cherry pick,

This seems to be your consistent theme.
You interpret the bable to suit yourself,
You interpret terms to suit yourself.
You interpret science to suit yourself.
You use scientists views to suit yourself.
And no surprise,
You have a view that suits you.


Sorry kid your blinkers are not even pretty, you have nothing of interest to say.

No, I use my intellect. I understand the material. You don't. I draw proper distinctions. You don't. I justify my arguments. You don't. You fail to defeat my arguments. I defeat all the silly Atheist protests.
You fail to provide any arguments or evidence to justify your belief. You offer empty remarks. I offer evidence and arguments grounded in science and rational reason.
There's a real substantive difference. Atheism is impotent in the face of evidence and reason.

Now you remain faithful in that blind Atheist belief you can't defend.

---

Yes, the physical science cannot speak to the conditions causally antecedent to the beginning of physics. It's beyond the scope of science.

Cosmology is science, and part of cosmology deals with the origins of the uinverse and what was before it.

They understand well the Theistic implications of Big Bang and Fine Tuning confirmations.

Fine Tuning is a logical fallacy. It assumes that world was created for carbon-based life, when it's carbon-based life that adapts to the world.

I am absolutely certain Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku prostitute their professional integrity to the services of Atheism.

I'd love to see your scientific credentials.

Michio Kaku was on CNN claiming that Higgs Boson particles have some implications for cosmological origins, 'disproving God' was just naked lying of the highest order. He knows what he said is false.

You seem to know what Michio Kaku thinks better than him. Do you have any supernatural powers?

Yet, any novice physicist knows vacuum energy is not Nothing.

That's because "nothingess" doesn't exist. The universe could have started via quantum vacuum. Krauss was using a metaphore to explain his theory in layman's terms.

Hawking peddles a 'no boundaries' proposal hoping to give an illusion of an infinite Universe - absolutely irrelevant to the fact that our Universe has a proven finite past.

Our universe may not be all that exists.

My Christian epistemology of God is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the scientific evidence. Can you provide any basis to claim otherwise?

Your Christian epistemolgy claims that a dead body came back to life. This isn't consistent with scientific evidence.

Moreover, the unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics disproves the idea of a "design" behind the universe. It's impossible to implement a design in an universe that obeys to quantum mechanics.

You've gone from superficial responses to inane responses. Try to defend one. Pick one. You choose. They're all stupid - and irrelevant.

[Welsh cake]

God is not physical

I couldn't give a rat's arse what you think or what you don't think.

The question of god or gods is ultimately irrelevant to our lives.

Atheism is not a belief position? Really?

Really.

Get over your childish mental block and move on.

[Kirbmarc]

You've gone from superficial responses to inane responses. Try to defend one. Pick one. You choose. They're all stupid - and irrelevant.

So this is your method. When people disprove your arguments you declare their answers stupid and irrelevant. How logical.

Just for kicks, then, let me be clear: Fine Tuning is a fallacy, because it assumes that the universe is made for life, when what is true is that life adapted to this universe. Saying that the universe is fine-tuned for life is just like saying that noses are fine-tuned for glasses.

There is a staggering amount of evidence that life has been fine-tuned through NATURAL SELECTION to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life has adapted to physics, not vice-versa.

Moreover, if the Universe were really designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible, but evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.

But I know that no matter what I write, no matter how I show you that your arguments are wrong, you will just repeat that you are right, because my answers are "inane". If Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins would come to the forum and write detailed dissertations on the reason about how and why you are wrong, you'd still reply that their answers are "inane".

Your arguments are old and "inane". They're the proofs of Thomas Aquinas, and they've been disproved countless times. A self-proclaimed owner of an Encyclopedia of Philosophy should know that.