ICANT'S position in the creation debate

What do you mean by "prove"?

You do realise that you are in serious god of the gaps terriotory here. Yes? 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?

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".Let me know.

So is the point of your thread the whole "uncaused cause" argument or not?Because people are going to waste a lot of time talking about various things with you when all that really matters to you is the "uncaused cause" thing.Which ultimately has little to do with BB theory. Or any of the other scientific theories you have mentioned thus far.So is that what we are talking about or not?

Well it has unearthed a serious amount of evidence that contradicts most of the stories in Genesis. Is that no enough? You seem to conclude that the human need for an answer means that there must be one available.Isn't "we don't know" the honest and truthful answer to hese questions? Why?So is this about unacaused causes or not? Because if not I will leave the subject. If it is just say so.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well which part of "just is" do you have a problem with or not understand?

Does it? Why?And what do you meant by "infinite"? Do you mean eternal? As in no beginning? Or do you mean something else?I don't understand either your terminology nor your thinking regarding this matter. Can you clarify both?

OK. The universe has existed for all of time. Does that answer your question? Exactly. Where?I still think you are destined to go down the philosophical route of uncaused causes, parsimony and the causal chain in this discussion but I will play your ever present T=0 games for now.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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? 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 happyWhy 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?

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? Why must it be "infinite" if it "just is". On what do you base this conclusion? And if a "beginning" exists why does that preclude the Universe from being "just is"? Why is the universe itself not that "uncaused existence"?

Just to let everybody else know what ICANT is talking about here: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe contains a link which is what I believe ICANT is referring to.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you mean this? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507v1.pdfThis is a paper by Guth regarding inflation and mentioned by me in a previous thread.Also if you fancy continuing Message 126 is still awaiting a response.

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.

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.Dude that is a pretty weak position.

Are you seriously claiming that eternal infinity is more evidenced than uncaused beginnings?Again - Using your terminology and your definitions. Where have we observed either?