Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

Hey. Hey gaiz. Look what's happening.

[The Valkyrie]

Hey. Hey gaiz. Look what's happening.

Considering the quality of his arguments here it should be interesting . . .

[His_Majesty]

And you haven't established that it can't happen in either. You've just... said it a bunch, as though your incredulous exclamations count for anything.

Is that the same reason you had such a difficult time answering simple analogies which proved my point.

You realize that a singularity is not nothing, right? It is, in fact, something.

I never said nor implied that it wasn't. I have a question for you: Do you realize that a quantum vacuum isn't nothing? It is, in fact, something.

One might be tempted to point out that, actually, it is everything.

Something that cannot be past-eternal.

So, prior to the big bang, all the matter in the universe still existed, just compressed down to a hyper-dense point.

Right, that is the singularity point according to the Standard Model. But the notion isn't that the singularity wasn't just sitting there for eternity waiting to expand, either. If it BEGAN to expand, then why did it expand only 13.7 billion years ago. Why not sooner? Why not later?

Are you really attempting to argue that there was a beginning of our universe in which our universe already existed in a different state?

No, I am saying that the singularity itself began to exist at some point in the finite past.

Your knowledge of this stuff is profoundly flawed; nowhere in the scientific models does it state that the big bang represented the beginning of our universe.

I will keep this quote on file, and come back to it below...to show how you contradicted yourself so blatantly obvious.

For all we know, it could simply be a change in state from another form of being; all the big bang actually is is an expansion of local spacetime into our current universe. What lies beyond it is still a mystery, but you have no reason at all to declare that nothing at all lies beyond it.

The BGV theorem states that our universe could not have been expanding forever, and you just admitted that it expanded from a singularity point...the singularity is not synonymous with our universe..the singularity expanded and BECAME our universe, but it is not itself our universe.

Second, if you posit all of these "changes in states of forms"...you are really saying "maybe there was these infinite cosmic changes in forms", which is implying infinite regress...which is a demonstrably false notion, a notion that you've failed to demonstrate how it is possible.

So you are basically running on fumes right now.

Yeah, you completely misinterpreted that video. Did anyone else watch it? Did anyone else see the first three minutes, where Vilenkin states that one would need new physics prior to the boundary conditions of a past-finite universe? In other words, one would need new physics to describe what happens before the beginning of our universe? Does that sound like someone asserting a beginning of the universe, full stop? No, it sounds like exactly what I was fucking saying all along.

See, you just contradicted yourself. Above you said "nowhere in the scientific models does it state that the big bang represented the beginning of our universe."

Now you are paraphrasing Vilenkin to say "..One would need new physics to describe what happens before the beginning of our universe".

Keyword: BEGINNING. What "new" physics is needed is completely irrelevant to the implication that the universe had a beginning. I don't know what part of that you aren't understanding. He spent the entire video explaining the shit.

"A spacetime that is average expanding Hav > 0, is past geodesically incomplete" Look at the video and pause at 1:00 and this is what you'll see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOyQFkB1AGM

Our expansion rate of our universe is greater than 0, therefore, it is past geodesically incomplete, therefore, the history of the expansion cannot be extended into past-infinite...therefore, it had a beginning. And Vilenkin said, this theorem is independent of Einstein's theory of relativity, and it is also independent of any "energy conditions that are assumed".

So you are just wrong again..but that has become a common occurence with you based on my brief tenure here.

Vilenkin goes on to say a lot of other things that confirm what I've been saying and are mutually exclusive with what His_Majestic_Incompetence is saying, like, say "expansion is not really a property of spacetime, it is a property of a congruence of geodesics," meaning that universal expansion is not the same thing as the universe exclusively expanding.

"meaning that universal expansion is not the same thing as the universe exclusively expanding."

Someone please explain to me what the HELL does that mean? That is like saying "universal mass murder is not the same thing as murder exclusively being "mass".

In other words, its nonsense.

You can't argue with visual evidence, fool. Guth is right there on screen, literally holding the text of his answer. The fact that you (baselessly) decided that a mysterious something is wrong with it, that it doesn't live up to your randomly decided standards, doesn't mean a thing, other than that you'll dismiss whatever's convenient for you, for whatever reason you can scrabble to.

I am saying I didn't see Guth say anything. I saw a picture of him with someone attributing words to him.

I have now: you're wrong about what he's talking about. Does that make you happy? Vilenkin even says, toward the end that his approach is to follow the universe back as far as he can using classical spacetime, whereupon he reaches a point where he can't follow any more, beyond which "it's not clear what happens."

I agree with Vilenkin, it is not clear what happens prior to the beginning of the universe. No arguments here.

He also said that the answer was inconclusive... which was the point I have been arguing for, through all your strawmen, since the very beginning.

Yet, he also showed three models of the universe that were made to evade the theorem...the one from Aguirre/Gratton, Carroll/Chen, and Hartle/Hertog....6 physicists that are trying to evade the theorem because the universe is eternal????? Bullshit.

Yeah, and you really fucked up when you did because the video absolutely does not confirm what you claim it does, as my quotes from it above demonstrate. You do this counting thing a lot during this post, it's clear you think you've got a real trump card here, so I want all the readers out there to remember just how proud His_Majestic_Ego is of this point, versus how badly it actually reflects what he wants to be true. The irony will be quite bracing.

Quotes? "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonble men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." (Vilenkin: Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, p. 176)

Now, what part of that don't you freakin' understand? "No longer hide behind the POSSIBILITY OF A PAST-ETERNAL UNIVERSE."

"There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic BEGINNING".

Cosmic beginning. Now you can try to dance around the shit all you want, in fact, I won't even be talking about the BGV theorem with you any longer after this post..again, I don't know whether you are slow, ignorant, or dishonest...and I don't have the patience to sit here and try to figure you out...not to mention the fact that you've done a horrible job of refuting the infinity problem, which would also prove this "first cause" notion that I am presenting.

Yes, and the reason the universe is expanding is because of the big bang

So the universe is expanding BECAUSE of the big bang? I'm through.

[abaris]

HisMajesty is contending that the tests are not for God's benefit, but for ours. For instance, the test of Abraham regarding sacrificing his son Isaac can be interpreted as God showing Abraham that he is indeed willing to obey no matter what God commands; and the point of the test was to impart that self-knowledge. Of course, an omnipotent being could impart such knowledge directly, but it doesn't make much of a story.

However one wants to look at it, His Majestys argument is a pile of excrement steaming at a street corner, lurking for the unsuspecting to step on it.

If god is perfect and all-knowing, he creates his Sims just like he wants them to be. All features are included in the first draft. So, he doesn't go out and creates a beta version of Abraham to test if the bot is really capable of killing his own son. According to the attributed features of the god model, it already created a sociopath. The only reason for sending the Sim on his mission, seems more like having a cruel joke at the expense of the helpless youth.

Hey. Hey gaiz. Look what's happening.

For some reason I get a loading error - server not found.

[FatAndFaithless]

Esqui, at what point in that debate would you consider just ending it, if he pulls a Gish Gallop or blatantly misrepresents your statements or views? I love debates, but a good debate does kind of depend on both sides discussing the issue honestly.

[Esquilax]

Esqui, at what point in that debate would you consider just ending it, if he pulls a Gish Gallop or blatantly misrepresents your statements or views? I love debates, but a good debate does kind of depend on both sides discussing the issue honestly.

Oh, I shall be following it to its conclusion, regardless of what that turns out to be. All of us here have a pretty good grip on evolution, we'll know when the conversation has turned inaccurate- and I'll definitely be pointing it out myself- and that's hardly going to reflect well on the person driving it there.

[FatAndFaithless]

I suppose that's true. The likelihood of him sneaking in a strawman or begging the question without us noticing is pretty slim.

[His_Majesty]

The possibilities are endless, but there is only one reality. So to say something is possible isn't saying much at all. Stating the likelihood is where you can acutually get somewhere.

Right, there is only one reality...and the reality is the fact that if something is possibily necessarily true, then it is actually true.

What is the likelihood that abiogenesis is true? It is based on chemical reactions which we know exist.

I don't know about that.

It's also based on self-replicating molecules which we also know to exist (e.g. RNA). So the likelihood is pretty high.

Or this. Go in a lab and demonstrate it, and then start barking.

What is the likelihood that God created life? Well it is based on an intelligents that doesn't have a physical body which we have never seen that.

We've never seen life from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness either.

It is based on a being that can break physical laws of nature which we have never seen either. So God's likelihood is pretty small.

Right now, there is no physical law of nature which state that life can come from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness.

[LastPoet]

Ahw, the smug arrogance allied with ignorance. Precious.

I vote pigeon.

[Esquilax]

Hey. Hey gaiz. Look what's happening.

For some reason I get a loading error - server not found.

Yeah, I've updated the link so it should work now.