Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'n not a physicist, but isn't the universe currently expanding and cooling?
If the universe was eternal, and had existed for trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions x........as in no beginning.....
first of all, we wouldn't have been able to pass an infinite amount of time to get to NOW....but 2nd of all, it would have been totally expanded and cooled off by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
They don't believe we came from nothing. They believe we came from dust, or a rib, or something.
Things like the 2nd law of thermodynics, and the expansion of the universe point to it NOT being eternal. The question then is, what caused the universe to exist?
You keep asking the same question even though it has been answered a dozen or ore times.
Neither the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics nor the expansion of the universe imply a beginning for the universe. It only implies a point during which this part of the universe passed through a singularity.
You keep asking the same question even though it has been answered a dozen or ore times.
Neither the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics nor the expansion of the universe imply a beginning for the universe. It only implies a point during which this part of the universe passed through a singularity.
What about that do you not understand?
So now you're changing the argument....you now suggest that PART of the universe passed through a singularity.
Nope...doesn't work....the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics still tells us that it would have dissipated by now. If it was eternal, it would have dissipated a looooooooooooooooooong time before that singularity.
The fact that you actively debate against the existence of God shows that it's a worldview for you. You are't just apathetic to the idea--you actively believe there is not a God.
So your belief is no God.
No, I actively debate neutrality. You are debating for the existence of a god without having any proof, while I'm saying there is neutrality. The onus is on you to prove the positive, my friend.
No, I actively debate neutrality. You are debating for the existence of a god without having any proof, while I'm saying there is neutrality. The onus is on you to prove the positive, my friend.
Your god is not neutral, proof of your god would be proof of a positive. I don't believe in a god or gods because there is zero proof.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
