nothing god is best explanation

Originally posted by tim88
was he not being a smartass to me first. but i know you guys have a team and your just trying to be a team player

I think you belong to the school of people that mistakenly believe that "smart"
and "smartass"* mean the same thing...

No I was not being a smartass... I was simply pointing out your 'evidence' came
from a site that literally listed why the 'evidence' was wrong right next to it.

If I was being a smartass I would have made fun of you while I did it, for being
so comically stupid as to quote arguments from a site debunking them.

My post would have in fact looked more like this one...

I hope that this helps you with your evidently ongoing quest to comprehend the
basics of the English language.

Now you can go forth and recognise smartassery with confidence.

*On this side of the Atlantic that should contain an r... but the Anglo-phobic
auto-mod wont allow that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you belong to the school of people that mistakenly believe that "smart"
and "smartass"* mean the same thing...

No I was not being a smartass... I was simply pointing out your 'evidence' came
from a site that literally listed why the 'evidence' was wrong right next to it.

If I was being a smartass I would have made fun of you while I did ...[text shortened]... of the Atlantic that should contain an r... but the Anglo-phobic
auto-mod wont allow that.[/i]

ok fine but that was not the post of yours i replied from and you know it.

let's settle this over a game of chess best man wins. chess requires logic and sense. and seeing that i'm so stupid you winning the game will be a cakewalk

Originally posted by tim88
ok fine but that was not the post of yours i replied from and you know it.

let's settle this over a game of chess best man wins. chess requires logic and sense. and seeing that i'm so stupid you winning the game will be a cakewalk

Ahh, now you need another lesson in English comprehension.

I said you were being stupid, (or had been stupid) not that you WERE stupid.
I have no idea how intelligent you are. I just know how dim it is to quote post
an argument from a site that has a full refutation of the argument right next to it.


I'm also amused that you seem to think that trial by combat is a reasonable way
to decide who's right.

The idea that the universe came from nothing is more parsimonious than the idea that the universe was created by a creator-which-came-from-nothing.

I agree.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Uh huh. Usual question: what "caused" the Creator? And if the Creator needs no cause, why can't the laws of physics have no cause?

Uh huh. Usual question: what "caused" the Creator? And if the Creator needs no cause, why can't the laws of physics have no cause?

Why should I think that laws by themselves should DO anything if space, time, and matter do not exist ?

The event of the beginning of the universe is an act which I think indicates a deciding will. And that to me points to a willing Creator.

Laws, just sit there even if they were somehow eternal.

What does 2 + 2 = 4 DO ?
What does any law of physics Do but just be there acting upon what is going on ? The beginning of the going on must be initiated some other way.

I don't see how proposed eternal laws could initiate anything.

Originally posted by sonship

Uh huh. Usual question: what "caused" the Creator? And if the Creator needs no cause, why can't the laws of physics have no cause?

Why should I think that laws by themselves should DO anything if space, time, and matter do not exist ?

The event of the beginning of the universe is an act which I think indicates a deciding will. And t ...[text shortened]... e initiated some other way.

I don't see how proposed eternal laws could initiate anything.

"The event of the beginning of the universe is an act which I think indicates a deciding will. "


you know what happened at the beginning!!!! wow!!!! nobel prize winging its way in your direction. how did you figure it out???

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"The event of the beginning of the universe is an act which I think indicates a deciding will. "
you know what happened at the beginning!!!! wow!!!! nobel prize winging its way in your direction. how did you figure it out???[/b]

I think that there was an ample amount of humility in the way I phrased what my belief was.

"The event of the beginning of the universe is an act which I think indicates a deciding will. "

I said, I think. I did not say that I know.

Originally posted by sonship
I think that there was an ample amount of humility in the way I phrased what my belief was.

[b]"The event of the beginning of the universe is an act which I think indicates a deciding will. "

I said, I think. I did not say that I know.[/b]

how is it possible to say an 'event' indicates something, when you have no idea what the 'event' was. what are you basing your opinion on?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how is it possible to say an 'event' indicates something, when you have no idea what the 'event' was. what are you basing your opinion on?

The event was the creation event, alias the Big Bang.

Space, time, matter are currently believed to have had their beginning in this event.

Do you think the universe always existed ?
Do you HAVE a position or are you only interested in probing possible problems with mine ?

My position is that a creation event started the existence of the universe. That is what the current opinion of cosmology is today. It may change. And I know there are some alternate viewpoints.

The BGV theorems have argued that any universe in state of expansion had to have had a beginning. Their rationales are mathematically rigorous.
And while I may not be phrasing it in a way, from memory here, perfectly, I think I have the essence of their findings correct.

This would include any multiverse scenario also, according to the BGV theorems.

Again, do you have a position on this ? Or are you just waiting for something I write you can pounce on as a logical or semantic problem ?

Originally posted by sonship
The event was the creation event, alias the Big Bang.

Space, time, matter are currently believed to have had their beginning in this event.

Do you think the universe always existed ?
Do you HAVE a position or are you only interested in probing possible problems with mine ?

My position is that a creation event started the existence of the ...[text shortened]... are you just waiting for something I write you can pounce on as a logical or semantic problem ?

i dont have a position per'se. the theories we have that describe events before a few milliseconds after the big bang just beg more questions. we cannot define a 'beginning' the big bang could be just another step in process. i remain open minded and interested in all theories put forward.

im happy to accept we do not know and wait for science to figure it out. rather than making conclusive decisions based on 'events' we only have a vague concept of.

Originally posted by tim88
if you would like to view all http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_God's_existence#Evidence_in_creation


A Creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
There is a basic principle that everything that began had a cause; something or someone that caused that thing to begin to exist. From the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics ...[text shortened]... e parsimonious than the idea that the universe was created by a creator-which-came-from-nothing.

That's what's called a Science Stopper.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_stopper

Originally posted by tim88
if you would like to view all http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_God's_existence#Evidence_in_creation


A Creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
There is a basic principle that everything that began had a cause; something or someone that caused that thing to begin to exist. From the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics ...[text shortened]... e parsimonious than the idea that the universe was created by a creator-which-came-from-nothing.

When you post, I hear 'dude, like, there's this site that totally agrees with my beliefs and shtuff' *toke toke*

Originally posted by sonship

Uh huh. Usual question: what "caused" the Creator? And if the Creator needs no cause, why can't the laws of physics have no cause?

Why should I think that laws by themselves should DO anything if space, time, and matter do not exist ?

The event of the beginning of the universe is an act which I think indicates a deciding will. And t ...[text shortened]... e initiated some other way.

I don't see how proposed eternal laws could initiate anything.

Replace "laws" by "regularities" and it makes more sense. If nothing exists, and nothing continues to exist, there are no regularities other than that fact. No gravitational constant, no time, no matter, no spatial or temporal extent. And importantly, no causality.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
When you post, I hear 'dude, like, there's this site that totally agrees with my beliefs and shtuff' *toke toke*

That's pretty much what made me /facepalm back on page one.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's pretty much what made me /facepalm back on page one.

http://wolfbane15.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/picardfacepalm.jpg