Damn... did I waste half an hour of typing to teach you how to properly quote people and you just ignored it all?!
You lost respect points there, my man...
That's precisely the point!
WE DON'T KNOW!
Stop pretending you do know when you insert the super complex entity commonly known as god.
The only intellectually honest position to take is one of skepticism towards any definite claim towards how the big-bang could have come about.
I merely showed you an alternative. I'm sure that many more alternatives could be concocted. Which is right? Don't know!
Better wait until science gets there - didn't I use this sentence in my very first reply on this thread? Back when we were talking about "truth"?
"demostratedly unestablished"... what an expression!! And you know what?... it is in agreement with my previous post. You should go read it again... it has some nice caveats inserted for absolution from absolute claims.
Then you dropped this other pearl "the impossability of self existing naturalism". Drich, is that you?
Why is it "impossable"?
Are you stuck on the "our Universe is all there is" idiocy?
You lost respect points there, my man...
(October 18, 2016 at 1:54 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "Our Universe's space-time can very well be expanding within the infinite space-time.Indeed you could and can say that I cannot guarantee that things happened this way or that.
There's no way to know that it's not the case, so you can't shut down that possibility and insert a super powerful conscious entity in there."
I could just as easily say you can't insert an infinite space time theory when we have reason to believe this to be so. Cosmologists like sean carrol are on the defensive. I agree with alot of the off hand points he made about theism and general science, but wasn't impressed with his dissmisal of the contrary.
That's precisely the point!
WE DON'T KNOW!
Stop pretending you do know when you insert the super complex entity commonly known as god.
The only intellectually honest position to take is one of skepticism towards any definite claim towards how the big-bang could have come about.
I merely showed you an alternative. I'm sure that many more alternatives could be concocted. Which is right? Don't know!
Better wait until science gets there - didn't I use this sentence in my very first reply on this thread? Back when we were talking about "truth"?
(October 18, 2016 at 1:54 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "So you think that space-time existing since all eternity and for all eternity is more of a stretch than the existence of a conscious, Universe-creating, eternal entity?Dude... I'll have whatever you're having...
Occam's Razor, dude... which is simpler?"
Seeing how eternal universe theory has been demostratedly unestablished (even by your friend sean carrol here), and just the impossability of self existing naturalism. I'll side with a creator. Where we find B, there is always and A. Why wouldn't the universe follow the same logic?
"demostratedly unestablished"... what an expression!! And you know what?... it is in agreement with my previous post. You should go read it again... it has some nice caveats inserted for absolution from absolute claims.
Then you dropped this other pearl "the impossability of self existing naturalism". Drich, is that you?
Why is it "impossable"?
Are you stuck on the "our Universe is all there is" idiocy?
