Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[brotherlylove]

And here is the best argument against any fine-tuning. If the parameters were not what they are, there wouldn't be any existence or a universe at all. Which means, the parameters could not be anything other than what they are. Which means, they are not tunable. Ergo, no fine-tuning.

There are also many parameters where there would be a Universe and existence, but no life. Therefore, they are tunable.

Are you too dense to realize that they are talking about the observable universe having a beginning?

I think you need to actually read the paper rather than skim it and pretend you know what you're talking about. The title of the paper is "Did the Universe have a beginning?" not, "Did the observable Universe have a beginning?", and then it goes on to refute eternal inflation, cyclic evolution and static seed scenerios. These theories cover both what we can and cannot observe.

Except, there is evidence for actual infinities. There is none for god.

Feel free to demonstrate this evidence at any time.

New past events? Who's talking about new past events? The events being added to the past would be "new" if all the events uptil now were accounted for. They are not, since past events are infinite. We are not adding new past events, simply discovering them.

The past has been actualized and is infinite, which is why it is an actual infinite. We simply refer to it as potential because we do not know all of it - obviously, since it is infinite.

Again, this all contradicts temporal becoming, and if you want to say the past is an actual infinite, then you have all the logical absurdities and contradictions that go with it. If we were to subject every third past event from the actual infinite, it would still be an actual infinite.

Even if I was to concede that an infinite past is possible, which I am not, the mere possibility of it is not persausive; the problem being that you don't have an argument. You don't even have a model to refer to.

---

go ahead and move the goalposts. I would expect nothing less.

I moved nothing; you simply selected an arbitrary definition of the word "created" and created a strawman argument with it.

Not gonna play your stupid game. If you meant scientific laws then that is what I will answer. They are the way they are because they could be no other way once the four fundamental forces took effect after the universe cooled enough. If they were any other way, you wouldn't be asking me such a silly question. Now if you want to know how the laws were formulated you have to stop thinking of "legal" laws. Scientific laws are descriptions of observations.

My stupid game? Do you mean you cannot justify your beliefs about morality? Since you are so confident that you are right about everything, why the hesitation?

Why are there fundemental forces to begin with? Where are you getting the uniformity in nature from?

---

Everything I know is completely, demonstrably, and fundamentally wrong. Everything any of us knows with regards to science is a terrible mistake. We're all wrong. Now, explain to me why you are right.

Since you admit you're wrong about everything, you must now admit that scripture is the only book we have that contains an accurate record of our history. Only an omnipotent being would know those details, such as the age of the Earth, and the details of how it was created and what happened between now and then. Therefore, scripture is true and Jesus Christ is God.