Originally posted by AThousandYoungi said matter cannot exist without space and time. you are telling me that space can exist without matter, that means nothing to me. it does nothing to disprove what i have just said.
What makes you think this? General Relativity tells us that the universe was once a point of infinite density and zero volume.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomThat is based on a whole lot of assumptions. Firstly science has not yet shown that time had a beginning. Science has not shown that the observable universe is the entire universe. Science has not shown that every entity must have a creator in fact that contradicts your earlier statement that matter can not be created - a statement that science has already proved is totally false. Matter can and is created and destroyed (nuclear power, the sun etc)
you obviously didnt pay attention to the video, or did not watch it all. he does use proof, matter can not be destroyed or created, and since it exists in time, it had a beginning, implying that an entity created it, an entity that exists outside of time. he says it is god, but i say it is an unknown entity at this moment.
The whole idea that if the universe appeared from nowhere therefore it must have been created is flawed in so many ways. It is little more than a guess based on a misunderstanding of the workings of the currently observable universe.
Originally posted by twhiteheadall theories on how we came to be are based on assumptions. time having a beginning is one of those assumptions. i did not contradict myself, i said that matter can not be created, EXCEPT by an entity outside of our universe. also i would like you to show me where matter has been destroyed, not just broken down.
That is based on a whole lot of assumptions. Firstly science has not yet shown that time had a beginning. Science has not shown that the observable universe is the entire universe. Science has not shown that every entity must have a creator in fact that contradicts your earlier statement that matter can not be created - a statement that science has alread ...[text shortened]... e than a guess based on a misunderstanding of the workings of the currently observable universe.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomTime having a beginning is not an assumption that is used in any scientific theory that I know of. Do you know of one? please share!
all theories on how we came to be are based on assumptions. time having a beginning is one of those assumptions. i did not contradict myself, i said that matter can not be created, EXCEPT by an entity outside of our universe. also i would like you to show me where matter has been destroyed, not just broken down.
Matter can be converted to energy as I am sure you know. The matter no longer exists. It has therefore been destroyed. It is not simply broken down.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadScience can peer back as far as the Big Bang and no further so in that respect that is our beginning as far as they are know or will ever know.
[b]That is based on a whole lot of assumptions. Firstly science has not yet shown that time had a beginning.
Originally posted by whodeyNot so. Science can not peer as far back as the Big Bang and there is no good reason to assume that we cannot know anything before that or whether or not there was a 'before that'. You sound very similar to someone who claims that you cannot travel beyond the edge of the earth (as you may fall off or get eaten by sea monsters).
Science can peer back as far as the Big Bang and no further so in that respect that is our beginning as far as they are know or will ever know.
ps There are a number of hypothesis which propose that the visible universe is not the whole universe and more importantly that it should be possible to test whether or not they are correct ie detect the non-visible parts.
Originally posted by rwingettor the sources i am using are from theists who do not understand science. or you just do not understand religion.
What it all comes down to is that EcstremeVenom simply doesn't understand the science. It's too complicated for him. Rather than concede that his comprehension is deficient, he assumes that science is deficient, and therefore presumes that god wins by default.
Originally posted by twhiteheadhe does use science in some of his videos, also, many atheists/agnostics jump to a conclusion that anything a theist says is nonsense. "he is just a theist, what does he know?" sort of thing. no matter how much of a scientist a theist may be, his theories will always be nonsense to an atheist/agnostic
What science? The original poster wasn't talking about science, he was talking about God, and some mumbo jumbo he had conjured up to make himself feel better about deluding himself.