Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

it one of christianity’s foundational creeds that universe came into existence from nothing; would do you well to get behind krauss, he has unwittingly stumbled unto something that's true.

Just so long as you're admitting that your god is nothing, then.

Oh, and booya, there's your hundred pages.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh congratulations. We did it. We reached 100 pages of utterly meaningless dialogue.

---

Rev, I think you're ready for some proper education.
I know this video has a few advanced physics, but Krauss tries to make it understandable to the beginner.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

---

If you want to delve in further... http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=569 (minute 23)

it one of christianity’s foundational creeds that universe came into existence from nothing; would do you well to get behind krauss, he has unwittingly stumbled unto something that's true.

But to be fair ST, you don't really know anything about anything, so you'd be the last person we'd listen to when it came to forming our beliefs. Well, maybe Enrico would be the last, but you'd be a close second to last.

[Tonus]

it one of christianity’s foundational creeds that universe came into existence from nothing; would do you well to get behind krauss, he has unwittingly stumbled unto something that's true.

If Christianity was willing to admit that the source of the universe was nothing, we might actually make a bit of progress.

[pocaracas]

Rev, I think you're ready for some proper education.
I know this video has a few advanced physics, but Krauss tries to make it understandable to the beginner.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

---

If you want to delve in further... http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=569 (minute 23)

it one of christianity’s foundational creeds that universe came into existence from nothing; would do you well to get behind krauss, he has unwittingly stumbled unto something that's true.

You have clearly not even bothered to listen to the contents of the video.
Why do you [theists who come to this site] always do that?

[Esquilax]

You have clearly not even bothered to listen to the contents of the video.
Why do you [theists who come to this site] always do that?

Because their ignorance is just as valid as our evidence.

[Whateverist]

Congratulations people. We have posted on the 100th page. That's pretty much all I've got.

[Chas]

It is impossible to reason that it does without any fucking evidence for it.

You believe in things that are unproven, so don't cast stones at glass houses.

Oh, really? What do I believe in that's unproven?
Can you read my mind or something?

You are a desperate, delusional dimwit to suppose you know my beliefs and try to use that as a response.

Show me evidence, or shut the fuck up.

---

And the reference is "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". You are an ignoramus.

[snowtracks]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

You don't know this is true, and you don't know the universe had a cause.

---

---

---

2.The universe began to exist.

Our current, local universe did. You don't know what came before it, or even if "before" is a valid concept in that state.

3.Therefore, the universe had a cause

Since premises one and two are merely arguments from ignorance, the conclusion does not stand.

many have tried to impugn it, but it stands like the rock of gibraltar; now genuflect before it and be thankful.

We don't need to impugn it: all three statements are merely baseless assertions. We have no need to pretend the things you wish were true are, especially when you offer nothing beyond your own opinions.

the best explanation of the cause is God. why? the data.

The best explanation of the cause is Santa. Why? The data.

You see how easy it is to make baseless assertions, Snowy?

---

[pocaracas]

no human being has ever witness an unclaused event, or an event preceding a clause.

That's because all of humanity has lived inside the universe, within the last, what?, 2 million years or so...
And, who knows?, maybe there was a physical cause for the universe as we know it.

[snowtracks]

I will note that this clause is worded the way it is ("begins to exist") specifically to attempt to avoid the question of infinite regression. That is the only reason that the first clause is not described as "everything that exists has a cause."

---

Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart before you even get to the second statement. So you tack on a qualifier for no other reason than to try to cheat your way past a very thorny problem, wherein the most complex thing in the universe is the only thing that wasn't "designed."

It amazes me that you still use such a transparent and pathetic argument.

Earlier versions of the cosmological argument did just say "everything that exists has a cause." The Kalam variant was specifically formulated to dodge the infinite regression problem which, to me, is a clear as day signal as to just how mercenary and dishonest this argument is.

No extra information had been discovered, no new thoughts had been thought: the argument just changed, adding in another bare assertion, specifically because there was an objection to the initial version that was irrefutable. It's just moving the goalposts and hoping nobody will notice.

---