The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

[Angrboda]

[Kitan Etos]

The theistic mode of interpretation is less for thinking and more for connecting everything to a god through ill reason.

[Bucky Ball]

[Bucky Ball]

Angrboda. Did you watch your own video? Around 20-30 seconds, Dr. Lincoln says: "the Big Bang, which is the Beginning of the Universe itself". Lol. And again, the description in the video: "The Big Bang is the term that scientists use to describe the beginning of the universe. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln clears up many common misconceptions about this fascinating topic."

This is from Alexander Villenkin: "Loosely speaking, our theorem states that if the universe is, on average, expanding, then its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past." He also wrote: "the answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed ... my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God"

Look, I get that you don't like the clearly Theistic implications of the Universe's having a Beginning. Even those who are Neutral or Undecided on the particular question of God's Existence quite openly say that the Universe had a Beginning is quite certain. The Big Bang is a Theory first proposed by a devout and highly learned Catholic Priest, a Master of Science, Fr. Georges Lemaitre; it was criticized in the early days by those who believed it was a Creation Theory. Ultimately, it essentially is one, as Physicists are discovering more and more.

You, Angrboda, are conflating or misunderstanding two things (1) Given the current state of physics, our measurements break down at around an infinitesimal time after the Big Bang, and (2) We cannot therefore, allegedly, know the Universe had a beginning. Your conflation of the 2, or your allegation that 2 is a necessary consequence of 1, is a simple non sequitur on your part.

Physicists reason like this, as the above excerpt also shows: (1) the universe is constantly expanding, (2) extrapolating backward, said expansion could not have been indefinitely continued in the past (3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Planck time, etc, is irrelevant to this conclusion.

Since Eternal Happiness is not formed by successive addition, nor is it a collection like an alleged infinite number of balls, that's another non sequitur. Rather, it's a Spiritual State of Perfect Bliss, that comes from God's Free Choice to allow us to participate in His Divine Presence in Heaven.

Bucky, I didn't study in a Catholic College, I studied in a Secular One, NIT, Trichy, the best Engineering Institutes in India after the IIT's. I did Engg. in Undergrad, and Mgmt in Post-Graduation, quite a common combination in B-School. Anyway, some don't like the implication that the observed Expansion of the Universe cannot be continued indefinitely in the past, which itself is like the Thomistic Argument; so they try to evade the conclusion. Other Astronomers and Physicists say it quite explicitly and openly, yes, the Universe had a beginning, and is not infinite in the past

Presently, the smartest man in the world, Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, totally disagrees with them. 

[The Grand Nudger]

Why is this still a thing that you’re arguing? You’ve already spent your bastardization of bbt….and…explained how, in no uncertain terms, it has literally nothing to do with why you believe? God found your keys and cured your grannies glaucoma and that’s that……?

[Belacqua]

[no one]

Nish, you said you were good at math. Did you mean meth?

[Deesse23]

This ignoramus gets about every single scientific issue which he addresses completely wrong, yet he boasts about his excellent education.
What i am however taking more issue with than his ignorance per se, is his WILLFUL ignorance. He will, no doubt, avoid to learn anything new and correct his errors.

[Kitan Etos]

If theists could reason past their ignorance, they wouldn't be theists.