|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best evidence for Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator. So whenever science has yet to understand something, this is evidence for a creator? So when we did not understand what kept a positively charged nucleus together, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand how the Sun and the Earth could come to be, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand what made thunder and lightning, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand in any way how life could possibly come into existence from non-life, that was evidence for a creator? Hmmm, the track receord isn't that good, is it? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If it had a beginning it had to be created. 1) This is an assertion. Please demonstrate its validity. 2) And if it doesn't have a 'beginning'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. So you have observed a property of a few elements of a potentially infinite set, and then you try to claim that therefore the set itself has this property? Not so much wrong as making no sense whatsoever...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
come into existence from an absence of anything Likewise, this makes completely no sense. 'come in to existence' requires some aspect of temporalness, yet the 'absence of anything' precludes this.
without outside help. And how on Earth can an 'outside help' exist in an 'absence of anything'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You forget that nothing makes easy sense in math by the zero As a mathematician, it is unlikely I would forget. But it is simply untrue. We build the concept of zero by considering the empty set {}. But we still have the concept of set. Zero is not 'absence of anything' - we have no concept for this.
And that is where they have calculated decisions come from, from nothing, and from nowhere. Gibberish
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Glory, Hallelujah I do believe you are beginning to get the picture. ICANT, I've been considering this sort of thing for nearly three decades, and for a good portion of that was paid to do so. I'm not sure I've ever been so insulted as to suggest that 'I'm beginning to get the picture' via discussion with you
There either had to be some thing or there would still be no thing. Who said there was nothing? At any time? If the Universe 'began' 13.7 billion years ago, then the answer to 'what came before?' is not 'nothing' but, 'I'm sorry, your question makes no sense'. We have tried to explain this to you for god knows how long now, and you still don't get it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Why would the universe itself be exempt from causality? Why should it not be exempt? This is your seconf fallacy of composition this thread. Causality is a property of the internal constituents of the Universe. The Universe is not a constituent of the Universe. The set R of the Real numbers does not have the properties of the numbers contained within R.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
ICANT writes: There either had to be some thing or there would still be no thing. CD writes: Who said there was nothing? At any time? If the Universe 'began' 13.7 billion years ago, then the answer to 'what came before?' is not 'nothing' but, 'I'm sorry, your question makes no sense'. We have tried to explain this to you for god knows how long now, and you still don't get it... ICANT writes: Sure I get it. You don't know. WTF? Is this a reading comprehension problem or deliberate mis-quoting? ICANT, believe me, you get nothing, and your idiotic reply above demonstrates this more than my words could ever convey. I repeat: If the Universe 'began' 13.7 billion years ago, then the answer to 'what came before?' is not 'nothing' but, 'I'm sorry, your question makes no sense'. We have tried to explain this to you for god knows how long now, and you still don't get it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If the universe had a beginning in our past then that would require a creation and a creation would require a creator of some sort. Please support this bare assertion with evidence.
These things are the best evidence for a creation with a creator. Then your best evidence is rather poor...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If it is a fact that causality is a property of the internal workings of our universe, wouldn't that rule out brane theory and string theory? Of course not
Isn't those theories supposed to supply every thing needed for the expansion of our universe to expand to where it is today? How does the expansion of the Universe "to where it is today" have anything to do with a lack of causality???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method. How the hell does this follow from anything of what you wrote above it???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Therefore 'IF' the universe had a beginning/origin, it had to be created/formed out of energy and mass which is some thing. It did not have to be created at all...
"So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method." And this is nonsense. You have made no such demonstration that "it had to be brought into existence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If it had a beginning that means it came into existence No, it does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Where do you get that definition of beginning? To 'come into existence' requires some sense of time or causal structure. The 'beginning' we talk of is at a point without causal structure - therefore you cannot talk of something 'coming into existence'. There is no before, no 'nothing then something' - there is simply existence, which has an earliest time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hawking said the evidence indicated the universe did not always exist. Was Hawking wrong? Yes/No I would argue that some there is some slight evidence (from theoretical phsyics) to suggest that perhaps the Universe existed prior to the Big Bang. He would agree with that.
Hawking said it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago. Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No We don't know yet.
Hawking said this is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No Probably? Possibly...
Hawking said it is now taken for granted. Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No By many, yes. By all, no.
If the universe did not always exist but now it does exist it had to come into existence. Incorrect
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024