The Theory of Evolution.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Yes, at this point the origin of the universe is unknown, but it may not stay that way.

1. The universe began to exist.

2. Anything that began to exist had a cause.

3. The universe had a cause.

Sine the universe incorporates the space-time continuum, the cause had to transcend physical space and time, making it both immaterial and eternal. It couldn’t have been a static cause because an eternal static cause would have an unchanging effect, and our universe is changing, so it had to be immaterial, eternal and a free agent of change. The only immaterial things are abstract objects like numbers and laws, or non-physical minds, so it had to be a personal, immaterial, eternal, powerful cause.

This is a deductive argument from which the conclusions follow naturally and inescapably if the premises are true (which they are), so whether you like it or not, there is very good evidence for theism and no good evidence for atheism.

For instance, with the Large Hadron Collider we may be able to find evidence for branes (M-Theory) since the math predicts that gravity will be affected by other dimensions.

Materialism-of-the-gaps.

You're here admitting that scientists are not objectively following the evidence, but are speculating and looking for substantiation for their speculations.

Such 'other dimensions' seek to reframe the obvious fact that the space-time continuum had to be created from something outside itself (i.e. space and time, therefore spaceless otherwise called immaterial, and timeless otherwise called eternal), simply to dodge the necessary and obvious conclusion that the evidence points to a cause the attributes of which necessarily correspond to what Christians have always referred to as God.

If the results support the existence of branes, then that is strong evidence for a multiverse.

A multiverse simply shifts the problems to a larger scale. It doesn't explain anything.

If the material universe came into being, then it must have been caused, and the cause logically and inescapably must have been one that transcends the limitations observed in material reality, and therefore it was an immaterial cause, and there is nothing inconsistent about the concept of an eternal, immaterial being, nor of that being causing the non-eternal and therefore necessarily created universe.

So not only are there ways of testing some of the theories for the origin of the universe, albeit not as good as anyone would like,

So far from as good as anyone would like that it's really speculating with calculations.

we may be getting some results within the next few years that help rule out one or more ideas.

Modal logic has already rendered a verdict, but naturalists don't what to hear it so you're all holding out for a naturalistic explanation that sounds good-ish based on 'tests' that are "not as good as anyone would like" (Sam Vimes - Poster and Gentleman), which you anticipate with solid faith.

That's materialism-of-the-gaps. Assumed and supported by faith in the material, against all evidence to the contrary.

Dawkins' delusion that Darwinism enables one to be an 'intellectually satisfied atheist' is relegated to the field of biology. Contestable though this assertion may be, there is no contest that cosmologists are at a loss to account for origins by material means, so Dawkins (and all y'all) wait in anticipation of someone to cook up the explanation you all have faith in.

So much for the unbiased, objective march in whatever direction the evidence leads.

In general, by conflating various scientific theories, you are making everything more complex, not less, and much more confusing.

The truth is, the evidence leads squarely to God, unless you impose methodological restrictions from entertaining such assertions or conclusions, which you have.

So, being willfully blind to the potential of the evidence to lead to God is far from the same as the evidence pointing towards naturalistic cosmology.

And even if you achieve some weak, poorly supported, ad hoc explanation it would fail entirely to match the arguement for God as the cause, with its powerful explanatory scope that encompasses a tidy, logical and precise explanation of the origin of the cosmos, the fine tuning of the universe to support life, the biological response to such permissive conditioning of the universe in violating the yet never observed to be broken law of biogenesis, the improbability of life developing by natural mechanisms, the orderly and consistent structure of the universe that permits observation and prediction, and the existence of immaterial components of the material universe that we utilize to make intelligible use of the material such as logic and empiricism which have no explanation in materialism.

So, while the theistic approach has the explanatory power to fully satisfy each of these, the alternatives struggle to offer possibilities (without any supporting evidence) that could potentially offer explanations of each isolated consideration.

Occam’s Razor give credibility to the explanatory power of the single thesis with the wider explanatory power, at the outset, unless something concrete is presented to contradict the premise. Since there is no empirical evidence upon which to reject this theory and accept the naturalist theories in its place, I would argue that blind faith is yours.

So you couldn’t be guiltier of the charge that you’re presenting, and against which the Christian has an excellent defense.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Have you ever calculated the chances of your own existence? I am not talking about the universe and stuff, but YOU.

Instead of you (depending on many very random factors) a very large set of potential siblings of yours could have been

born. Not to speak about the chances of existence of all your ancestors.

We should be careful to dismiss chances and luck too readily, and we should not confuse a-priori vs. a-posteriori

chances of a certain event. Considering that probability is a core component of fundamental physics, I think it

should deserve a bit of respect.

On the other hand, it is very easy to make an event happen that had an arbitrarily small chance of happening, even

without supernatural power. For instance, throw a coin hundred times and take note of the sequence of results.

What was the chance for such a sequence to happen? Very small, but it did happen!

First, the ToE and all other materialism requires stacking vanishingly small odds on top of vanishingly small odds nearly infinite times in spaces of time too short for the outcomes to be possible.

Further, we're talking about small chances that conform to recognizable patterns. We don't believe that arrow heads we find on the ground came about by chance natural events, and compared to the subjects in question their having done so would be a snap.

This kind of oversimplifying hand-waving is utterly rejected in real life applications.

Maybe I'm really just a dog that's smacking the keyboard with my paws and it just happens to be sequencing itself as a nested serious of responses to your posts... small chance but by your line of reasoning it's possible right?

Of course not. In reality we can all distinguish the difference between chance events and design and pretending that we can't is simply denial.

[twinc]

so lets see - does nothing happen where you are or does everything happen where you are - you must try very hard and understand that once upon a time long,long,long ago nothing happened,blew itself to bits,in fact millions of bits and these millions of bits of nothing formed everything - I kid you not - twinc

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

1. The universe began to exist.

2. Anything that began to exist had a cause.

3. The universe had a cause.

The universe, as you say, contains the time-space continuum, therefore a predicate like "(the time frame) began to exist" cannot

be applied here for obvious reasons. How can something begin to exist if the time frame is not pre-existing already?

Viole, no one agrees with you because this is so demonstrably defiant of the Laws of Physics, all our observations, and logic.

Entropy and the Laws of motion demand a starting point. Just because you have trouble comprehending how that starting point is possible doesn't negate its necessity. Remember how I keep pointing out that what you accept in your imagination is not a sufficient test for truth? That applies here.

You can't overrule physics observation and replace them with imagination because you're more comfortable with what you came up with in your imagination. You're trying to establish a contradiction based only on your capacity to imagine, and opting instead for theories that are demonstrably contradictory to physics, observation and logic.

Viole, that's crazy talk.

It is like asking: at what time has time been created? It is not difficult to see the absurdity of this.

Only because you're trying to think of timelessness in the same light as time, which itself is demonstrably absurd.

You can't escape a necessity by failing to comprehend an abstract. That simply shows your limitation, not the limitation of the argument.

Therefore, premise 1

No it's not. You just reject premise one because you feel like its uncomfortable to imagine, so you make up fantasy that defies physical reality instead.

is obviously falsified

No it's not.

The definition of 'falsified' is not 'anything that Viole cant imagine'.

and the consequence does not follow necessarily.

The conclusions do follow necessarily unless the premise is demonstrated to be erroneous and your imagination is not a valid challenge to the premise.

[LuftWaffle]

OldEnglishSheepdog,

Viole, no one agrees with you because this is so demonstrably defiant of the Laws of Physics, all our observations, and logic.

Laws of Physics and observations are exactly what make this syllogism irrelevant. Actually, I am surprised that there are

modern people who still take this medieval argument seriously (which, ironically, intended to prove Allah existence).

But even if it were able to prove that there is a cause (there might be, indeed) you still need to prove that the cause

is conscious, and He is the God of Christianity. It is like being exhausted after 1 KM during a marathon run.

Actually, there is a big choice of ways to attack it. We already discussed some of them.

Consider for instance the sentence

- Everything that begins to exist has a cause

I might be slow, but I cannot think of anything in our daily observations that begins to exist. Could you provide an example?

haha.

Looks like she's reached the end of her atheist playlist, but it's set on "repeat".

Notice how her argument has now shifted back to genetic fallacies and chronological snobbery against the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument itself, I think she tried that same one about a month ago.

"The Cosmological Argument is too old and was invented by a Muslim, so therefore the argument must be wrong"

...And after I told her twice that the pre big bang state is ontologically(or causally) prior to the universe and not temporally prior she ignores it and carries on acting as if the time issue is an insurmountable obstacle.

She's also tried this idea before that the Cosmological argument doesn't prove the God of Christianity as if that saves atheism from the argument. It's a case of, "Sure the argument shows there is a God, but since we don't know which God, we can still believe there is no God. Woohoo!". How absurd and how sad, rehashing previously failed arguments hoping they'll stick this time. What do they say about people to do the same thing over expecting different results?

Fez, you're right...

[Isaiah 6:8]

My whole basis is this The Origin of everything, the origin of matter of energy of everything. is unknown. There is no proof, or way of testing where this all came from. You must choose to believe by faith one of these arguments. From which ever of these are, your whole world view comes from.

You know I was trying to paint the broad picture of what is taught as fact in schools and from what I see all the time on the discovery channel etc. you just had to nit pick the fine details.

Yes, at this point the origin of the universe is unknown, but it may not stay that way. For instance, with the Large Hadron Collider we may be able to find evidence for branes (M-Theory) since the math predicts that gravity will be affected by other dimensions. If the results support the existence of branes, then that is strong evidence for a multiverse. So not only are there ways of testing some of the theories for the origin of the universe, albeit not as good as anyone would like, we may be getting some results within the next few years that help rule out one or more ideas.

In general, by conflating various scientific theories, you are making everything more complex, not less, and much more confusing.

Nope, Even M-Theory would prove there exists matter/energy in another universe. Where did that come from, another multi-verse? and where did that come from? and where did that come from?...

You see the fallacy of your logic you are stating that something other then God MUST have always existed, though you cannot prove it. You are so against GOD that you will belive anything but, even with out evidence. So as I mentioned in another post.

You do not like our faith so you are trying to preach your faith, while pretending that it is science.

[Isaiah 6:8]

How the Earth got here is of no importance to the validity of biological evolution, that is the point. It could have been made by God via supernatural providence or through a godless system, it doesn't matter when it comes to validating the theory of biological evolution. It's all connected, but not the way you try to make it out to be, do you understand what I'm saying?

I understand what your saying, I just disagree. If you followed what I was saying is this. If you have no planet, then there would be no life on such planet.

How you see this planet was formed is important. One view is God, one view is "Evolution" Perhaps not the biological evolution but the cosmological evolution. your right though I should have made it clear as to what evolution I was speaking of. I was speaking of everything that encompass the "God Not Needed" theory's of the creation of everything, including life on earth.

It's only godless in terms that it cannot be reconciled with the idea that God made us the way we carve statues or make home-made dolls for girls. It doesn't deny the idea that God set up the laws, created all matter and energy, sustains and guides it all, or even that God uses miracles to ensure that his will is met.

Yes, your right. However its also Godless as in, you don't need an intelligent being aka GOD to have done this. It would have happened with or with out God.

I'm trying to tell you how physicists and cosmologists, who make it their profession to study these things, view the big bang.

This is an excerpt from "Starts With A Bang", a blog by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel : Starts With A Bang

See how in the explosion you get ring(s) of residue energy while an expansion doesn't? When scientists look they don't get a picture of an explosion, but of an expansion.

So you are going into details. If you want to call it an expansion, fine, but answer me this, if we have known this since 1920 then why have scientists, not made it clear in the media of today? Why is it when they teach it in observatories and other such institutions that it started off with a BANG. Perhaps, because a rapid expansion would produce a sound, like an explosion?

So they are teaching mixed messages then. But out of my entire OP, You choose this to call me on first? This is picking at straws. my point of this was that they say that a super singularity formed, compressed then Expanded/Exploded, what ever into everything we see today, that is what is taught, and thats what I stated.

Neb was asking if I have faith that we will find evidence; I don't need faith that we will find evidence because we already have evidence, albeit no where near conclusive. Do you understand my position on this matter?

I do understand, and by that logic I don't need faith to believe in creationism, as I have lots of evidence for that, that is much more conclusive then an atmosphere with one missing type of Gas.

So your using a straw argument. You are taking facts and twisting them to fit your theories. So in doing this you are not being scientific and rational, but emotional. You have a predetermined choice that is evident

.

The life on Triton thing. There is one fact, Triton does not have the chemical acetylene in the upper atmosphere were our probe went. There is a host of reasons why this could be. One of the possible, however very remote explanations is a Methane based life form. Of which we have never observed.

You have taken a fact, picked what that fact meant from your preconceived Ideas, and then adapted the theory of what that fact meant. Yes it was not conclusive but you jumped right to the theory that you wanted it to be. You did not even mention other reasons that it could be, based on things we already know and observe. For instance our probe skimmed the surface of the atmosphere. It did not do an in depth, long term study. Its quite possible that it the chemical acetylene, was not present where the probe passed, for instance. That explanation is very mundane, and not as exciting as alien life. But you jumped right to the Alien life and said it was evidence. Yes you said not conclusive but you said it was evidence. Even though it was far from it.

I didn't try to nit-pick; I mostly talked about your hyperbole regarding chance and fine-tuning (in my initial post). I tried to keep the rest short and to the point without making a big deal.

I do apologize about the fine tuning, I tried to keep it from slipping in. That is what I was asking about.

Again my point is this. You have a preconceived notion on what happened, based on what you think is science, that is being taught by people with preconceived ides and they are twisting the facts to fit there models, and you are simply following the same.

If you make an emotional choice on the outcome, and filter all results to highlight the outcome of your choice. This is not Science.

I see the same with creationism. I believe in it, and I see how things line up with my belief, but I will admit it is not Science either.

As I have stated before, you must believe something by faith. No matter what, there is a point in our history that is outside the realm of what science can even possibly explain. (where did matter/energy/forces etc..) come from. You must pick where one of those came from by faith. From there your entire world view will form.

Not by logic but by faith.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Fez, you're right...

Is that all that you've got?

Sorry, but this is a typical case of male's arrogance.

Looks like you are not able to answer the question either: what example can you provide concerning something that begins to exists?

Your strategy is pretty clear: the only way you can win this is by getting me banned as a troll :-(

I am afraid you are not strong enough to accept to be intellectually defeated by a woman.

NO what he said was

haha.

Looks like she's reached the end of her atheist playlist, but it's set on "repeat".

Notice how her argument has now shifted back to genetic fallacies and chronological snobbery against the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument itself, I think she tried that same one about a month ago.

"The Cosmological Argument is too old and was invented by a Muslim, so therefore the argument must be wrong"

...And after I told her twice that the pre big bang state is ontologically(or causally) prior to the universe and not temporally prior she ignores it and carries on acting as if the time issue is an insurmountable obstacle.

She's also tried this idea before that the Cosmological argument doesn't prove the God of Christianity as if that saves atheism from the argument. It's a case of, "Sure the argument shows there is a God, but since we don't know which God, we can still believe there is no God. Woohoo!". How absurd and how sad, rehashing previously failed arguments hoping they'll stick this time. What do they say about people to do the same thing over expecting different results?

He said that at the end. Funny you could only reply to his one statement at the end of the thread calling you a troll, does that mean you do not have a response to the rest of his thread, that does show your logical fallacy?

If you do not, then perhaps you are a troll.

Also why is it that you have never tried to read a book I gave you? I gave you a link to it, and told you you could listen to it in audio form online for free on youtube. but yet, you refuse to even look at a book that may possibly prove God. Only books that are out to attack God and disprove him.

If you refuse to look at both sides of the argument, and simply bash the other persons side with out really trying to understand, then you are very much a troll.

[nebula]

I might be slow, but I cannot think of anything in our daily observations that begins to exist. Could you provide an example?

Are you claiming that you had no beginning? Your consience or your essence always existed?

[nebula]

Notice how her argument has now shifted back to genetic fallacies and chronological snobbery against the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument itself, I think she tried that same one about a month ago.

"The Cosmological Argument is too old and was invented by a Muslim, so therefore the argument must be wrong"

...And after I told her twice that the pre big bang state is ontologically(or causally) prior to the universe and not temporally prior she ignores it and carries on acting as if the time issue is an insurmountable obstacle.

She's also tried this idea before that the Cosmological argument doesn't prove the God of Christianity as if that saves atheism from the argument. It's a case of, "Sure the argument shows there is a God, but since we don't know which God, we can still believe there is no God. Woohoo!". How absurd and how sad, rehashing previously failed arguments hoping they'll stick this time. What do they say about people to do the same thing over expecting different results?

Viole, I would like to hear your response to this challenge.