Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,234 Year: 5,491/9,624 Month: 516/323 Week: 13/143 Day: 3/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 176 (477134)
07-30-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
07-30-2008 1:23 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 1:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 2:56 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 38 of 176 (477145)
07-30-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
07-30-2008 2:56 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
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'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 2:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 3:40 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 176 (477158)
07-30-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
07-30-2008 3:40 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 3:40 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 3:59 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 49 of 176 (477166)
07-30-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ICANT
07-30-2008 3:59 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 3:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2008 5:17 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 5:21 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 176 (477201)
07-31-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Syamsu
07-30-2008 5:17 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2008 5:17 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Syamsu, posted 08-23-2008 12:01 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 60 of 176 (477202)
07-31-2008 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
07-30-2008 5:21 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 5:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 7:30 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 61 of 176 (477203)
07-31-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
07-30-2008 11:10 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 11:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:09 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 176 (477247)
07-31-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
07-31-2008 7:30 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 7:30 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:57 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 71 of 176 (477304)
08-01-2008 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ICANT
07-31-2008 10:57 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 9:20 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 72 of 176 (477305)
08-01-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
07-31-2008 10:09 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:09 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 74 of 176 (477337)
08-01-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
08-01-2008 9:20 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 9:20 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 10:54 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 176 (477376)
08-01-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
08-01-2008 10:54 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 10:54 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 8:33 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 82 of 176 (477378)
08-01-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
08-01-2008 3:09 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
If it had a beginning that means it came into existence
No, it does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 3:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 5:43 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 88 of 176 (477467)
08-03-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
08-01-2008 5:43 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 5:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 1:47 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 89 of 176 (477468)
08-03-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
08-01-2008 8:33 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 8:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 08-03-2008 8:08 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 2:20 PM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024