Simply present the evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began or how life began.
You do realise that you are in serious god of the gaps terriotory here. Yes?
That shouldn't be too much of a problem as I have been told science has proved the Genesis story to be false.
Well which part of Genesis are we talking about specifically? Or does finding evidence contrary to any aspect of the Genesis story invalidate the whole thing?
Isn't the flood and the destruction of all humanity in the book of Genesis? I don't want to hijack your thread down that specific route but that one has been pretty conclusively invalidated has it not?
When did the BBT begin to speak about the beginning of the universe?
Dude is this inevitably going to be one of those "uncaused cause" threads again?
If so shall we just cut to the chase and get down to that topic specifically?
If that is not the purpose of your thread then fine. I'll leave that particular topic alone. But if that is where, as it seems, we are inevitably heading shall we cut out the various middle men and get down to it? If so let's ignore the distractions of modern physics and whatever other scientific theories people waste their time explaining to you and just get down to "uncaused causes".
The universe has existed for all of time. Does that answer your question?
No because time as we know it is a property of the universe.
Well it seems you have learnt something over the past couple of years. But you seem to be implying that there is some sort of "time" that is not "as we know it". Or am I reading too much into your phraseology here?
Is this where I ask you a question: Are you saying the universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is on 15 billion or so years?
If for the sake of argument you want to call T=0 a "beginning" then I'll go along with that if it will make you happy
Why exactly do you think that this precludes the universe from being "just is"? Somewhere down whatever causal chain you go there has to be something that "just is" (i.e. is uncaused). Why cannot the Universe be it?
Is the universe infinite/eternal/always existed? OR Did the universe begin to exist?
It has existed for all of time. But that apparently is not what you mean by "always". The sense that you seem to mean infinite/eternal/always strongly implies that you are invoking a sense of "time" that is somehow external to the universe. On what do you base this implicit assumption?
The universe can be "just is". But that means it has to be infinite in all directions.
Why must it be "infinite" if it "just is". On what do you base this conclusion?
When you date it as 13.7 billion years old it becomes finite. That requires a begining to exist.
And if a "beginning" exists why does that preclude the Universe from being "just is"?
I agree that eventually you get to an uncaused existence, that is responsible for all existence.
Why is the universe itself not that "uncaused existence"?
Yes, Straggler brought it up a long time ago and we discussed how the universe is a free lunch, energy and matter is created with the energy remaining zero in the universe. So the universe or universes are created from nothing, for free.
Just to let everybody else know what ICANT is talking about here:
You seem determined to conclude that the universe is eternal (by your definition of the word eternal/infinite) because you seem intent on concluding that "something cannot come from nothing" (again to use your terminology and definitions).
Ignoring the difficulties of modern cosmology and the scientific meanings of tems for one moment - Can you explain to me how "eternal with no beginning" existence is superior in terms of observed phenomenon to an "uncaused beginning"?
Purely in terms of your own internal logic why is one more plausible to you than the other?
This is a feature of your argument I have never understood. Please explain.
Eternal existence. Never having to begin to exist.
I can accept that.
Uncaused existence. Beginning to exist where 'no thing' exists.
I can not accept that.
So the only difference between your acceptance of infinite eternity and uncaused "beginnings" (using your terminology and your definitions in both cases) is personal incredulity. You don't claim that eiether is any more evidenced than the other.
And on the basis of this incredulity you dipsute the highly observable and predictively evidenced theory that the universe is expanding from a prior hot dense state.