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 see your point. However you're basing your belief on something that hasn't been proven and has virtually no evidence that it exist. IMO that's no different than creationism.
I honestly have to tell you, that comment makes no sense to me whatsoever.
To your first point, nothing has ever been "proven." If we are to be genuine scientists, we should consider banning the word "proof" from the lexicon. We can have very great confidence in certain ideas, but we can never have proof.
To your second, I could not disagree more strongly. How could anyone seriously assert that there is "virtually no evidence" that the universe exists? I am not arguing for the existence of anything other than that; the universe.
If it is true that something cannot come from nothing (and 100% of the empirical evidence suggests that this is true), how can the universe not be eternal? Please... slay that conceptual dragon for me. I would be deeply in your debt if you could do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
What is known is that our known universe is a system with a set amount of energy and at some point it either fizzles out, breaks apart when dark energy can no longer hold it together or it implodes in the "Big Crunch". Those are our choices and possibly destinies.
I want to point out the critical qualifier in your account here. You write only of "our known universe." In this way, you have explicitly limited the discussion to only a portion of the universe, specifically the period after the Big Bang. This thread debates a more comprehensive scenario.
Again, if it is true that something cannot come from nothing, then something must have preceded the Big Bang. In point of fact the two primary opposing positions in this thread both concede that as true. The disagreement is entirely on what that something was.
I am struggling to discern what you are adding to that discussion.
I honestly have to tell you, that comment makes no sense to me whatsoever.
To your first point, nothing has ever been "proven." If we are to be genuine scientists, we should consider banning the word "proof" from the lexicon. We can have very great confidence in certain ideas, but we can never have proof.
To your second, I could not disagree more strongly. How could anyone seriously assert that there is "virtually no evidence" that the universe exists? I am not arguing for the existence of anything other than that; the universe.
If it is true that something cannot come from nothing (and 100% of the empirical evidence suggests that this is true), how can the universe not be eternal? Please... slay that conceptual dragon for me. I would be deeply in your debt if you could do so.
I want to point out the critical qualifier in your account here. You write only of "our known universe." In this way, you have explicitly limited the discussion to only a portion of the universe, specifically the period after the Big Bang. This thread debates a more comprehensive scenario.
Again, if it is true that something cannot come from nothing, then something must have preceded the Big Bang. In point of fact the two primary opposing positions in this thread both concede that as true. The disagreement is entirely on what that something was.
I am struggling to discern what you are adding to that discussion.
I'm not going to tell you what you previously wrote, you should know that as I quoted it.
You believe that something must have been present before the Big Bang of which there is zero proof, right now. Your basis for that claim is it must be because there is no other options.
No different than saying God created it. Well, Who created God? Super God created God. Well Who created Super God? Super Duper God. Well Who created Super Duper God? Super Duper Dopler God! Going on infinitely.
It's the exact same thought process. If you believe in multi-verse then what before that? If the multi-verse is real then what was present before the developer of it? Your answer is it goes on infinitely.
Do you really see that stance as somehow better than someone that believes in a God/Gods/Aqua-Buddha? You claim to base your beliefs only in science but science, at least so far, hasn't proven any of that.
Damn historiandude. Take it easy. Calvinist might just send his friend gawd after you. You can't teach logic and reasoning to someone who is overwhelmed in delusions, historiandude.
I'm not going to tell you what you previously wrote, you should know that as I quoted it.
You believe that something must have been present before the Big Bang of which there is zero proof, right now. Your basis for that claim is it must be because there is no other options.
No different than saying God created it. Well, Who created God? Super God created God. Well Who created Super God? Super Duper God. Well Who created Super Duper God? Super Duper Dopler God! Going on infinitely.
It's the exact same thought process. If you believe in multi-verse then what before that? If the multi-verse is real then what was present before the developer of it? Your answer is it goes on infinitely.
You believe that something must have been present before the Big Bang of which there is zero proof, right now. Your basis for that claim is it must be because there is no other options.
Nonsense.
Ignoring again your graceless use of the word "proof," the universe that currently exists is rather direct evidence that something existed prior to it. I note that you seem intent on ignoring the actual question that I asked you. Perhaps it was merely an oversight, so I will ask again:
If it is true that something cannot come from nothing, how can the universe not be eternal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
No different than saying God created it. Well, Who created God? Super God created God. Well Who created Super God? Super Duper God. Well Who created Super Duper God? Super Duper Dopler God! Going on infinitely.
At this point, I am not quite sure who you are arguing with, because you are making one of my points against the sufficiency of the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God... one that I (and DC) have repeatedly made before in a very similar way.
But I must take umbrage on the patently silly assertion that it is "(n)o different than saying God created it." It is vastly different, in at least the following ways:
1. There is actually a vast amount of evidence that a universe exists. There is no comparable evidence for a God.
2. An eternal uncreated universe does not require a violation of the Law of Causality or the Laws of Conservation. An eternal uncreated God does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
It's the exact same thought process. If you believe in multi-verse then what before that? If the multi-verse is real then what was present before the developer of it? Your answer is it goes on infinitely.
Of course that is my answer. That's what an infinite regress is. That's what an eternal and uncreated universe means. And in spite of the fact that it is deeply counter intuitive, it is the only logical possibility given the empirical evidence. The universe does not conform itself to the limitations of human intuition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Do you really see that stance as somehow better than someone that believes in a God/Gods/Aqua-Buddha?
Of course I do. And by any objective comparison, it is better... refer again to the two numbered points above.
You seem to share Calvinist's visceral (but not well thought out) response to an infinite regress. You consider it absurd or intuitively "impossible." I cannot appeal to your gut. I can only demand that you actually use your reason to come up with an argument more rigorous than that "it somehow doesn't feel right."
The theistic position concedes the existence of an eternal and uncreated thing. So the disagreement is entirely on the character of that thing.
The theistic position posits a thing of a character that has never been demonstrated to exist, that has no evidence for its existence, and that violates all the laws of nature in which we have deserved confidence.
The atheistic position posits a thing that we actually know exists and that conforms explicitly to every natural law of which we are aware.
If you cannot discriminate between those two positions, I have to tell you... it is a reflection entirely on you, not on the positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
You claim to base your beliefs only in science but science, at least so far, hasn't proven any of that.
There you go again... tossing around the word "proven." Science proves nothing. Science instead approaches truth in an incremental, stepwise way. It has only two tools for doing so:
Damn historiandude. Take it easy. Calvinist might just send his friend gawd after you. You can't teach logic and reasoning to someone who is overwhelmed in delusions, historiandude.
Religion is a mental disease.
Perhaps your gawd named science will kindly explain to us, the diseased and deluded, why there is still hot radium commonly found on earth since your gawd says the earth is gazillions of years old. Or perhaps he did not correctly explain the half-lives of degrading radioactive isotopes?
why there is still hot radium commonly found on earth since your gawd says the earth is gazillions of years old.
Because it is a decay product of uranium. New radium is always being produced.
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.
