Universe Race

You are so focused on this T=0 shtick that you have missed an important point. The beginning of time/universe/previous states does not prove God. Why mention Genesis, or pretend that you are showing something concrete when its just smoke and mirrors? What happened before is unknown, that is the end of it. No, it means your making stuff up and evidence does not support you. Your imagination has produced some form of conclusion and your imagination is not a reason for anyone to agree with your conclusions. Argument from Personal Incredulity You can say that, but you haven't actually shown that. Why not "existence/last tuesday/universe printer"? Next tuesday it prints a different one FYI.

What dogmatic views exactly? I believe there was an event in our distant past that you could call T=0. I support the evidence that leads to such a conclusion. You have not shown any evidence that can lead to any conclusions beyond that point because there is none. Yes, it is like saying "Godidit". There is no answer, if you understood what the event implies you would realize that an answer is highly unlikely. You are attempting to describe the cause of an event that resulted in time. Its not only impossible, its nonsensical. Incorrect. You are trying to invent a conclusion about the cause of the Big Bang. The laws of science break down at T=0 so yes, without a doubt, your causation is a creation of your imagination. You will be required to produce evidence of God making Big Bang happen before you can jump to the "Its the truth, you just can't handle it" accusations. You asked:

quote:

---

and i ask you, without intelligence, how could it self evolve? hmm?

---

You are apparently ignorant of natures ability to evolve without the guiding hand of intelligence. Due to this apparent lack of knowledge I believe I am completely justified to say that you are basing your idea on an Agument from Personal Incredulity. Your "reasonable intelligence" is unreasonable, you have a lack of knowledge and think this gives you insight. Before you accuse me of having Schizophrenia you may want to read up on the mental illness, I work with people every day at my job who do have it and I am safe to say I do not fit the criterea for a diagnosis. Exactly my point! If you are willing to make conclusions based upon a decided lack of evidence, then is it not reasonable for me to rebut with a denial of evidence? Its the same thing really - you are attempting to convince people of a worldview that is not supported by evidence. I merely suggested another worldview that is also not supported by evidence. Again, exactly my point. If and when there becomes evidence regarding the cause of Big Bang then I will accept it. You are just weaving a story unsupported by observations. You are missing my point and thinking I am unable to understand your position. I presented an alternative that is equaly invalid as yours. You cannot say that yours is the only conclusion that can be made when I have already suggested an alternative. I can suggest several more if it would help you understand. Don't be trapped into thinking that I actually believe any of my alternatives to your story, I just have the ability to use my imagination and not confuse it with science. Thats actually not funny. If you had experience with the illness you would realize how insulting you are being to another human being. Its quite disgusting.

So lets get on with it, quit repeating previous claims and advance your idea. Present the evidence of what the outside interaction was that caused the Big Bang. Don't just say "God", I mean evidence that proves it was the Christian God as represented in the Bible. Remember that I am just going to reply that it was the easter bunny, universe printers, Thor, or a noodly appendage. Show me He caused it, then show me who He is so I know it was Him. Its funny that something so tiny as a snowflake can disprove your claims about the entire universe. You just said there was an outside interaction. Now that your attempting to confuse me I will just sit back and demand you present the evidence. Are you saying this is my belief? Lets be clear - I have no belief about what caused the Big Bang. If there was an "outside interaction" it is an unknown, if you wish to claim the cause as known then I want the evidence. You seem to be stuck in this idea that Big Bang had a cause, and by your imagination the one and only possibility is God. Because you feel there is only one possibility you believe it is justified to say you are in possession of some kind of Truth™. How can you actually believe that I (or others) have not examined your line of thinking? How can you call me (or others) ignorant when it has been shown that your line of thinking is illogical? There are alternatives to your conclusions, all of them are imaginary because there is no evidence to support any conclusions about the cause of Big Bang. You have not shown it. How excatly do you plan to show evidence of something outside the purveiw of science? Logic? I have shown alternatives, so logic will not get you anywhere.You are left with faith. Admit it.

So you adimit that you are unable to conclue that science simply has not found the answers to your questions. Funny how you ignored the fact that there was no intelligence to guide the creation of the snowflake. Order from chaos without intelligence. I agree its beautiful, I think the same thing about gravity and its ability to create planets and stars. Incorrect. Refer to the snowflake. You have not shown that the universe reguired an intelligent guide. Snowflakes and stars do not require direction. I dare you to read every post I have made since I joined this site and find where I said "Something came from nothing". You will find a few I am sure, but its generally making fun of creationist ideas about Big Bang. Try and understand this: Big Bang came from something - its up to you to provide evidence of what that something is. Assertions are not evidence. In order to prove something you have to go beyond insisting your view really has to be true because you really want it to be. My view is I don't know, and I need evidence to change that.Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

If you have an issue with my reading comprehension I would suggest bringing it up to a moderator. Read that again and ask yourself if that is evidence of the cause of Big Bang. You accuse me of having no reading comprehension and then you say things like that! Seriously. I did no such thing. I asked you for evidence that it was true. Still waiting. You appear to simply be resorting to insults. I have point by point made my objections known, if at some point you can answer them without the childish behaiviour perhaps this discussion can move forward.Edited by Vacate, : format

If I have ignored some point of evidence that you have put forward feel free to present it again I will rectify the issue. I suppose that is reason enough for behaving like a child. Might I suggest however not behaving like a child and make the attempt to prove your view? Thank you. I have made it a goal to become a diehard skeptic of anyones claims.

Given my grade school understanding of the math involved in the theory I will say: based upon my lack of understanding, I agree with you per se. String theorists claim that their math shows where this reality could come from. Its not evidence, just math. (to my understanding)You have logic, its also not evidence. You conclude this based upon what you feel is a logical deduction. Its not based upon fact, had it been based upon fact you could and would give examples of your evidence. Correct. The universe however is not like a computer. There is no law in nature that would allow atoms to form a computer, there are laws however that would allow stars, galaxies, superclusers, and the universe to form. Read back in the thread. Nobody has claimed that there was no outside interaction that resulted in the Big Bang taking place. In order to "do the math" one must be in possession of all the possibilities do you agree?You are claiming that it is necessary for there to be an "outside interaction" that resulted in the Big Bang. Its a logical deduction in that all events within the universe are affected by interactions with other bodies/energies/etc. I think that is a fair conclusion.------------------------------------------------In regards to the start of Big Bang or T=0 :1 - How much power is required for the event to take place? What I mean by that is would a nudge have been sufficient or does it take an omnipotent deity to cause the instability that results in the expansion.2 - What conclusions can you make about this power? If a deity is required what abilities are inherently nessecary for such a being to be able to cause such an event. Can we deduce given the information at hand (creator of the Big Bang) that this deity is capable of more than just creating a universe.3 - If I was to admit for the purpose of this argument that a deity created the Big Bang event, how would you go about proving to me that the particular deity (God) is in fact the correct one? Given the large number of dieties worshipped within human history how are you able to isolate the diety that is the correct instigator of the universe? Is such a conclusion obvious within the framework of the T=0 scenario that you have presented or is it necessary to refer to other readings to make a conclusion.4 - If other readings are required how do you choose what readings are appropriate given the abundance of contradictory writings claiming to be the correct one? Is there a particular verse, chapter, or quote that can be considered irrefutable evidence that you have chosen the correct cause of instability within the singularity?5 - You seem concerned about the well being of people who are unable to make conclusions about a time before there was time itself. Is there a particular reason that knowledge of events taking place before the Big Bang is more important than knowledge lacking in other fields? What I mean is: why is it important for others to make the conclusion that a diety caused Big Bang, but it appears you are unconcerned if these same people are aware of quantum physics, geometry, or calculus.

Given my grade school understanding, I am not suprised! Thats pretty much exactly what I was keeping hidden behind the "per se". My understanding is limited to some being skeptical and and some obviously in support (some must support it or they would not be working on it). I most often have the luxury of not taking a side in something I have virtually no knowledge about; for the purpose of responding to Tesla I figured it best to agree with him to limit the proselytising. The obvious negative effect being pointed and laughed at by someone who knows I am talking out of my arse.So far telling him he is wrong has only lead to repetition of the same comments. My hope is to show him his leap in logic to incorrect conclusions, or find that he has more up his sleeve than he appears. Again, for the purpose of trying to lead him to another fallacy in his argument I did make that blatant error. He feels that since events within the universe can only take place with what he calls an 'outside factor' I believe that accepting that such a conclusion also applies to the so called cause of Big Bang could further the discussion. I admit the error in my post and would gladly accept another way of trying to draw out how Tesla is going from A to Z in his conclusions.