Pineapples disprove Big Bang

[Pandas United]

We know the universe is contingent, hence needing some sort of creator.

Clearly, you are just making things up to support a theistic worldview.

Yes, clearly I am just making these things up. Clearly I am not supporting my assertions with mainstream science and philosophy.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf
http://www.logika.umk.pl/llp/1834/5-1834zw.pdf
http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/5849860

[Silver]

Yes, clearly I am just making these things up.

From what I can understand after perusing the argument, it is merely a con job upon which the crux is that the existence of necessary things do not require explanation.

[Pandas United]

Yes, clearly I am just making these things up.

From what I can understand after perusing the argument, it is merely a con job upon which the crux is that the existence of necessary things do not require explanation.

I love how quickly you overlooked those peer-reviewed articles I attached. Now jumping to the next objection.

"the existence of necessary things do not require explanation." Uhhh.. yes, clearly. Otherwise they wouldn't be "necessary." Have you ever studied metaphysics? This is very basic stuff.

[Silver]

I am unfamiliar with metaphysics, I will not lie. However, I will state the same thing in reference to your flawed theory as I have to those theists who claim that mathematics prove God's existence. If it actually did, there would be absolutely no doubt of God's existence. Since there are still atheists in the world who have extensively studied physics and mathematics, obviously your theory is not an accurate proof of God's existence.

[Pandas United]

I am unfamiliar with metaphysics, I will not lie. However, I will state the same thing in reference to your flawed theory as I have to those theists who claim that mathematics prove God's existence. If it actually did, there would be absolutely no doubt of God's existence. Since there are still atheists in the world who have extensively studied physics and mathematics, obviously your theory is not an accurate proof of God's existence.

Thank you for being honest, I can respect that. Let me just say though, before you can properly attack the cosmological argument or make judgements on the nature of necessary beings, you need at least an above-par knowledge of metaphysics. This is the number one blunder I see atheists make. Using judgements and making assertions against necessary beings without any knowledge of metaphysics. If I may, I suggest this introductory book to metaphysics by Peter van Inwagen (if you are interested)-
http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Peter-...0813343569

And no, the cosmological arguments do not serve as proof for God's existence. No one has ever said these prove God's existence. These are arguments that point to evidence for His existence. Sort of a "what is the best explanation for this?" argument.

[Silver]

From what I have gleaned, I am not much impressed with metaphysics. It seems too New-Agey to me. And besides, it is described as a traditional branch of philosophy as opposed to a branch of science.

[Pandas United]

From what I have gleaned, I am not much impressed with metaphysics. It seems too New-Agey to me.

I think Aristotle just rolled over in his grave.

I wish one of my friends who is about done with receiving his PhD in philosophy could see this comment. Do you know metaphysics is?

[Silver]

Do you know metaphysics is?

Spirit science.

[Pandas United]

Do you know metaphysics is?

Spirit science.

No, not even close. Please be informed on something before making such rash conclusions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics