nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

That energy you say was present at the big bang, where did it come from? What was its source? If it always was there, then you destroy your assertion immediately above that you are not proposing an eternal universe.

I am not proposing an eternal universe because time commenced with the expansion of the universe. If time commenced, then it cannot also be called eternal. Recall that prior to the expansion, dimensions of space and time were unavailable.

nuclearboy:

That would be lying. If it came from someplace, you destroy your assertion that the energy was present at the big bang. another lie? Well, which lie is preferable to you, sir, for us to consider?

So, what lie were you speaking of?

nuclearboy:

"Time" is not special pleading, Sir. You yourself define the commence of existence by appealing to a specific "time" - your big bang. Is it ok for you but not for him?

It is not ok for him to propose an alternate time-line outside the universe without better evidence to back it up other than simply stating an eternal entity.

nuclearboy:

Lets suppose there are 20 creators or 5 creators. What difference does that make to this issue? What matters is there was "creation". And how would you define a location for an entity that exists across realms?

It makes a huge difference. We need to know how long the chain of creators is. And how one was able to arrive at this particular number. It is also very important to religious believers especially monotheists to know who to direct their prayers to.

nuclearboy:

Your resorting to one-liners and defensive tactics takes nothing away from the arguments against you. Where you find a bad analogy, please give a good one as example. You say nobody has evidence. Please show yours so we know what real/good evidence should look like.

I had to for that post was quite long and the error was repetitive. He kept comparing the universe to man-made objects. I've demonstrated my sort of evidence several times as required.

nuclearboy:

And as justcool said, you ought not feel hurt except you're a religionist hurt at the defilement of your sacred places/beliefs.

I never said I was hurt. As a matter of fact, I said I was not offended.

Ok na , shebi una don tell me to shut up. Make we see if no be where I talk say una go end na im una go end.

Krayola:

I think an eternal universe is a possibility. Just like a creator God. I'm open to all possibilities. Just keep em coming. Na una wey wan narrow am down to one answer I think say dey miss out  

O boy you don enter naija? na when be your show na? I wan rub minds with you personally ontop another matter email things abeg my own dey my profile.

Deep Sight:

And just to emphaize thehomer's contradiction again.

He states that universe-like objects may simply be the default state.

What I mean is that their existence at some point as a singularity may be their default state.

Deep Sight:

He then says that he is not propounding an eternal universe.

No I'm not because time commenced with the expansion of said state of singularity.

Deep Sight:

Both statements are irretrievably contradictory. If universe - like objects are the default state, then ofcourse we have an eternal universe.

No they are not. I think you may need to carefully check the assumptions you think I'm making.

Also, can a mind be self-existent?

Chrisbenogor:

Ok na , shebi una don tell me to shut up. Make we see if no be where I talk say una go end na im una go end.O boy you don enter naija? na when be your show na? I wan rub minds with you personally ontop another matter email things abeg my own dey my profile.

Yes boss!
I suppose enter next month. My fam dey do Christmas here plus naija embassy dey waste time with my passport so i no fit make am for christimas. I go email u sharp sharp.

@chrisbenogor Ur email no dey ur profile o.

i have little patience to make long-winded posts especially in exchange for tenuous one-liner disaffirmations often reeking of intellectual dishonesty

@homer

Your reference to the anthropic principle is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that no one claims that this universe came from nothing but that all the energy was present at the Big bang.

the anthropic principle has a lot to do if you claim something comes from nothing. you should have made your first post clear then.
you don’t get something from nothing
no one claims this
followed by
So your conclusion is invalid based on the problems with all the premises except the first
if now you say no one claims the universe came from nothing then why did you not show that you agree with point 2? you don’t get something from nothing

Do you have evidence for this alternate time-line? Is your only means of solution is by an appeal to special pleading?

can you show where i mentioned an alternate timeline? 
that alternate timeline statement of yours is hardly even coherent in this matter
i simply extrapolated our known timeline into an unknown past!

No it it very relevant because this creator has to be somewhere to create this universe. Also, the way by which you arrived at the number of creators is also important for us to be sure you're not just making stuff up

the creator is somewhere truly but it's superfluous to attempt a physical description of a non-physical abstraction. you must surely know this. the number of creators is not important and i will soon show why in reply to krayola. i thought the argument was about intellegent creation versus chance occurrence? 

I'm not proposing an eternal universe. You, on the other hand, are proposing an eternal entity.

good to know you are not proposing an eternal universe. if you disagree on an eternal entity then you must agree on an eternal pre-universe abstraction otherwise you must explain where the energy came from since you said in (2) that something cannot come from nothing

---

@krayola:

You said something exists. Not that something was derived, or "gotten". I think those are different things. IMO your second premise has nothing to do with the first.

i assumed a non-eternal universe in my first premise. if the existent something was not derived or gotten, then it must be eternal. you can jump to point 3.

If u can show that the universe was "created" out of nothing, this could fly. But simply asserting that means little IMO. From my experience something can not come out of nothing, so based on that I have no reason to believe the universe did.

you are shooting your own foot. you just said the existent something was probably not derived. does this not show that it is either eternal (always was, and thus uncaused) or else was caused (by another caused or uncaused abstraction ad infinitum until an uncaused one is reached)? and then i never said the universe came out of nothing, so can you show where you got that from?

Or three creators. Or a creator that created it for amusement and committed suicide. or a universe that grew out of a preexisting something kinda like a plant goes from a seed. I can keep going. Why are those u stated the only 2 options? That IMO is another faulty premise.

this is poor reasoning on your part, krayola. you are so quick to try to put me in a box like im saying the creator is human, alive and was only one. this is plain logic. the number of the creators doesnt matter. whether the creator is dead or alive doesnt matter (in the context of this argument). if the universe was an offshoot of a pre-existing thing "like a plant from a seed", then its creator is the seed abstraction it grew from. the argument is that it is not a chance occurrence.

as i said, the universe must either be eternal or else by definition it is an upshot of an abstraction. this abstraction in turn is eternal or else also an upshot of another abstraction (here is where your seed-plant fits) but when you recursively follow through you must reach a first cause or abstraction and that is the ultimate creator, whatever form it takes, or whatever the numeric count.

the creator (ultimate creator, if the universe derived from a non-eternal abstraction) is NOT a white-box logical construct
the creator of the universe is a black-box logical construct.

Wikipedia:

In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed solely in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings, that is, its implementation is "opaque" (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human mind.

The opposite of a black box is a system where the inner components or logic are available for inspection, which is sometimes known as a white box, a glass box, or a clear box.

as such asking for the number of creators inside a black box makes no sense. even if they were a billion in numeric strength, they are the Creator still, and the output of the black box is evident in the universe.

[list][li]given the foregoing, n = number of creators cannot be zero otherwise the black-box does not exist[/li]
[li]therefore the number of creators is either a non-trivial constant n = c, or in general a variable function n(+)
[list][li]if n = c then it either these n abstractions operated as a unit in that instance of creation, or they acted in some chaos[/li]
[li]if they acted in unity, they will be considered as ONE, no matter how many components formed that whole[/li]
[li]if they acted in chaos like it happens in some black boxes where some parts are the limiting control mechanism of other parts to achieve an overall systemic ataraxis, then on a blackbox scale they acted in unity, for their efforts are complementary and in partnership to achieve the output of the blackbox[/li]
[/list]
[/li]
[li]if a variable, n may not be an explicit function but can always be implictly represented in u(+) = g(n, , , k) where u(+) is an otherwise described "universal" function that is partially derived from n and probably other unlisted variables and also takes to itself some trivial or non-trivial constant k. every variable function can be described in this manner
[list][li]at the instance of creation, this explicit function u(+) defines at least one non-trivial value for n. if the value of n was trivial, once again there will be no blackbox. assume n has (X+1) non-trivial values n0, n1, n2, n3,,  nX where x is a positive integer.[/li]
[li]each of these values n[::] is a constant or a function n[::][/li]
[li]if a constant, apply the logic used in the listing "n = c" above[/li]
[li]if n[::] is non-constant but non-trivial, apply the logic above recursively[/li]
[/list]
[/li]
[li]conclusively, after (a number of) recursive iterations one will always end up with a set of numerical values of n at any instance, given that n, a proposed variable is non-trivial. it has to be non-trivial or else the black box wont exist[/li]
[li]this above cannot be denied, such reasoning as I set out above is the foundation of all numerical analyses in science[/li]
[li]"n" as required is always positive and greater than zero, is not undefined, and is non-trivial, but may have multiple possible values depending on the instance {as set out in the u(+) = g(n, , , k) recursion}[/li]
[li]whatever this value or values of n is, the overall output of the black box is/was A CREATION, which is/was either
[list][li]entirely the universe, or[/li]
[li]some abstraction(s) that eventually (interacted or not, and) created the universe in turn, or else[/li]
[li]an abstraction of which the universe is only a part[/li]
[/list]
[/li]
[li]this/these n creator abstractions are defined in a black-box logical construct as a CREATOR abstraction that led to the birth of the universe directly or indirectly[/li]
[li]n or n[::] (for a set of n values) is thus non-trivial, but any attempts to numerically define "n" compulsorily will make for a trivial argument IMO[/li]
[/list]

cogicero:

i
@krayola:i assumed a non-eternal universe in my first premise. if the existent something was not derived or gotten, then it must be eternal. you can jump to point 3.

Eternal is a time measurement, I think. Time did not begin till the expansion of pre-big bang whateva was there. So in the context of the universe's origin eternal means little to nothing IMO. Something was there, it started expanding. How that thing got there no one knows. If you call that thing creator because the universe grew out of it then fine. Maybe the universe has a creator. Although I doubt that is what u mean by creator.  

cogicero:

you are shooting your own foot. you just said the existent something was probably not derived. does this not show that it is either eternal (always was, and thus uncaused) or else was caused (by another caused or uncaused abstraction ad infinitum until an uncaused one is reached)?

I did not say the existent thing was not derived. I said that you did not say so in your first premise. I made a statement about your claim. . . I did not make any claims about the universe,  i just pointed out what I thought was a flaw in your reasoning. Nice try tho. 

cogicero:

and then i never said the universe came out of nothing, so can you show where you got that from?

I never said you made such a claim.

I said "if you can show that the universe came out of nothing' then that your premise would work. . . . I never said you said so. I said that I thought your claim that something external and eternal is necessary was valid only if you can show that it was created out of nothing (sumn other than itself. . if "nothing" (no universe or pre big bang whateva was there) exists then it would need sumn external (to the universe or pre big bang WhatevA was there)  to bring it about. U haven't said it came from nothing so i don't think your claim makes sense)

cogicero:

this is poor reasoning on your part, krayola. you are so quick to try to put me in a box like im saying the creator is human, alive and was only one. this is plain logic. the number of the creators doesnt matter. whether the creator is dead or alive doesnt matter (in the context of this argument). . .


if the universe was an offshoot of a pre-existing thing "like a plant from a seed", then its creator is the seed abstraction it grew from. the argument is that it is not a chance occurrence

But is the seed external to/separate from the plant, as you claim your creator is to the universe?

You said there are only two possibilities (An eternal universe or an external creator) . . I showed your what i thought was more possibilities. A tree grows out of a seed. A tree is not a seed, and not external to the seed. A man grows out of a fetus, a fetus is not a man and not external to the man. The universe growing out of something does not make that something a universe, neither does the something have to be external. So IMO the universe does not have to be eternal to not need a creator, neither does it make the thing it grew out of a creator. At least not IMO.

And you said AN EXTERNAL CREATOR, and i pointed out there could be SOME CREATORS. If you just said the universe was created. . . I will not assume a specific number of creators. YOu said the universe has AN EXTERNAL CREATOR!! that means ONE! Abi i lie?

My argument is that there are other possibilities. You try to make it like your conclusions are the only ones that make "sense". I'm not saying u are wrong. I'm just trying to point out other possibilities to you. That's all. You say "these are the only possibilities" and I say ". . .why not consider these possibilities. .  ." i didn't say "u are talking nonsense". Please don't be defensive. We just havin fun here   


I gotta run. i will answer the rest later. God/Creator(s)/Eternal Universe bless you.   

@krayola
na cafdhsrisbensor@wetinconcernyou.com hehehehe

cogicero:

i have little patience to make long-winded posts especially in exchange for tenuous one-liner disaffirmations often reeking of intellectual dishonesty

That's fine. I usually avoid long winded posts. If you detect any intellectual dishonesty, you're free to point them out.
About the one-liners, if a point is irrelevant, it is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate its relevance.

cogicero:

@homerthe anthropic principle has a lot to do if you claim something comes from nothing. you should have made your first post clear then.
you don’t get something from nothing
no one claims this
followed by
So your conclusion is invalid based on the problems with all the premises except the first
if now you say no one claims the universe came from nothing then why did you not show that you agree with point 2? you don’t get something from nothing

Ok then. So something does not come from nothing. But, does "nothing" actually exist?

cogicero:

can you show where i mentioned an alternate timeline? 
that alternate timeline statement of yours is hardly even coherent in this matter
i simply extrapolated our known timeline into an unknown past!

An alternate time line is implied when speaking of some sort of eternity because we know that time began in the finite past. So, do you have evidence for this?

cogicero:

the creator is somewhere truly but it's superfluous to attempt a physical description of a non-physical abstraction. you must surely know this.

No I do not know this because I have not even agreed with you on this creator of yours. If you feel this creator is somewhere, then where is this place? If you feel you cannot describe it appropriately, then maybe you do not really understand what you are talking about.

cogicero:

the number of creators is not important and i will soon show why in reply to krayola. i thought the argument was about intellegent creation versus chance occurrence? 

No not quite because, we already know the outcome of this universe which is that it currently exists.

cogicero:

good to know you are not proposing an eternal universe. if you disagree on an eternal entity then you must agree on an eternal pre-universe abstraction otherwise you must explain where the energy came from since you said in (2) that something cannot come from nothing

The main problem as I see it is that you feel that you must have some sort of nothingness out of which this universe emerges by the action of your creator. I do not assume that this nothingness was the prior state out of which the universe emerged because, the evidence indicates that this energy was present prior to the commencement of the expansion.

cogicero:

. . .

the creator (ultimate creator, if the universe derived from a non-eternal abstraction) is NOT a white-box logical construct
the creator of the universe is a black-box logical construct.

Wikipedia:
as such asking for the number of creators inside a black box makes no sense. even if they were a billion in numeric strength, they are the Creator still, and the output of the black box is evident in the universe.

Sorry but this creator cannot be viewed as a black box because all we have is the output but not the input unless you wish to simply make up this input.

@thehomer:

Shifting the goal post does not help your position. You only suggest an inability to find suitable arguments to buttress your position when you respond thus.

One liners mean nothing. I could just simply say you've contradicted yourself and thus are deluded. This would elicit a response requiring me to show the delusion. But I showed that IN ADVANCE and your retort is what? Plenty of white space that says nothing.

Did you or did you not state that energy was present at the big bang?

So where did it come from? If it WAS PRESENT AT THAT START/COMMENCE of time, it becomes eternal (coming from "before" time). If it was not, then it was NOT there at the big bang which you have asserted here. Your assertions, your problem - time will not mask these. So decide and let us know which position it is you follow. Its your own words.

@krayola
Your royal highness abeg check your email.

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

Shifting the goal post does not help your position. You only suggest an inability to find suitable arguments to buttress your position when you respond thus.

What goal post did I shift?

nuclearboy:

One liners mean nothing. I could just simply say you've contradicted yourself and thus are deluded. This would elicit a response requiring me to show the delusion. But I showed that IN ADVANCE and your retort is what? Plenty of white space that says nothing.

Please point out the contradiction. My my I'm now deluded?

nuclearboy:

Did you or did you not state that energy was present at the big bang?

Yes I did.

nuclearboy:

So where did it come from? If it WAS PRESENT AT THAT START/COMMENCE of time, it becomes eternal (coming from "before" time). If it was not, then it was NOT there at the big bang which you have asserted here. Your assertions, your problem - time will not mask these. So decide and let us know which position it is you follow. Its your own words.

Aah so that's your confusion. Your problem is that you assume a state of nothingness prior to the big bang. I do not. You may need to note that one of my propositions is that it may simply be that universe-like objects are that way.
It is a scientific fact that this energy was present at the Big bang and it is also a scientific fact that time proceeded with the expansion.

If you propose that this was eternity, then you the proposer need another time line which is infinite (this is the meaning of the word eternal) outside of this universe to defend this line of argument.

Where did that "scientific energy" energy come from?

*Scratches my head*

I dont think these arguments will ever end because as I said on another thread,

When someone makes a (faith) claim, it must be backed by reason IN THE SAME DOMAIN.

e.g. Making a spiritual claim and reasoning it out in the physical domain will get you nowhere. If you make a claim as a theist about my religious beliefs, it is in the same domain and we must reason it out. If you are an atheist and you say the spiritual domain does not even exist, there is little that can be done that will not be considered "special pleading" because one is attempting an interlocution across domains.

You will hardly ever find me arguing about the existence of God anymore. My good friend viaro taught me that it's a useless exercise, some days ago.

Where is viaro? What happened to her? I miss all that grammar o. My dictionary is so bored now.

[list]
[li]Cc: @krayola; @thehomer[/li]
[li]your arguments are now flying the coop  [/li]
[li]u have failed to show how the universe is the result of a chance and spontaneous cause  [/li]
[li]but u keep demanding to see evidence of inner workings of the so-called black box called the creator (ironic by definition of a black box)  [/li]
[li]how is that for double standards?   [/li]
[/list]

nuclearboy:

Where did that "scientific energy" energy come from?

We do not know. But, there are various possibilities one of which is that it may not have had to "come" from anywhere or anything. It may just be a state in which universe-like objects exist.

cogicero:

[list]
[li]Cc: @krayola; @thehomer[/li]
[li]your arguments are now flying the coop  [/li]

Please explain.

cogicero:

[li]u have failed to show how the universe is the result of a chance and spontaneous cause  [/li]

All I was trying to point out is that the universe may not need a creator figure.

cogicero:

[li]but u keep demanding to see evidence of inner workings of the so-called black box called the creator (ironic by definition of a black box)  [/li]
[li]how is that for double standards?   [/li]
[/list]

I already pointed out that this God is not a black box because all you have is the output but no input unless you wish to make up this input. So, you're free to point out this double standard.

@thehomer:

Please lets stop the twisting and "magic" - I thought that was reserved for our business MOGs.

You state and I quote "there are various possibilities one of which is that it may not have had to "come" from anywhere or anything. It may just be a state in which universe-like objects exist." UNQUOTE.

This means naught and is hedging personified. The best anyone can give you for this is you have decided that no matter what, you will not accept truth.

Else,

[1] its just a possibility? You base your belief systems on wild conjecture?
[2] It may not have come or started from anywhere? Yeah, like the vehicle you drive just appeared, right?
[3] What state do "universe-like objects" exist in? What are "UNIVERSE-LIKE OBJECTS"? Are you making this up as you go?
[4] This state is "already existent from time(s)" i.e. eternal or "commenced sometime" i.e. had a start. This was what I pointed out and compared to your earlier statements. You still haven't told us which side on THAT divide you are on?

Its not a crime to say "I decided to hold on to my beliefs regardless of proof". Many theists do same. But seems the desire is to show US as deluded and you as "knowledgable/scientific/etc" - a patent sorry falsehood. The above is your BELIEF SYSTEM and you haven't defended it well.

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

Please lets stop the twisting and "magic" - I thought that was reserved for our business MOGs.

What magic?

nuclearboy:

You state and I quote "there are various possibilities one of which is that it may not have had to "come" from anywhere or anything. It may just be a state in which universe-like objects exist." UNQUOTE.

This means naught and is hedging personified. The best anyone can give you for this is you have decided that no matter what, you will not accept truth.

You have not presented anything that may be considered as truth.

nuclearboy:

Else,

[1] its just a possibility? You base your belief systems on wild conjecture?

It's not that wild.

nuclearboy:

[2] It may not have come or started from anywhere? Yeah, like the vehicle you drive just appeared, right?

This is a bad analogy because the universe is not like a vehicle.

nuclearboy:

[3] What state do "universe-like objects" exist in? What are "UNIVERSE-LIKE OBJECTS"? Are you making this up as you go?

Universe-like objects are objects such as the universe which had pure energy prior to the commencement of time. Of which we know of one such object which is this universe.

nuclearboy:

[4] This state is "already existent from time(s)" i.e. eternal or "commenced sometime" i.e. had a start. This was what I pointed out and compared to your earlier statements. You still haven't told us which side on THAT divide you are on?

Yes that energy state was already existent but that does not make the state eternal because we are obviously not in that state currently. So, what we can say is that the energy of the universe (not matter or time) may be eternal. With better evidence, I'll be able to get better results. Though there are other hypotheses, this seems to be more consistent.

nuclearboy:

Its not a crime to say "I decided to hold on to my beliefs regardless of proof". Many theists do same. But seems the desire is to show US as deluded and you as "knowledgable/scientific/etc" - a patent sorry falsehood. The above is your BELIEF SYSTEM and you haven't defended it well.

I don't think it is a good strategy to keep holding on to beliefs with evidence to the contrary or with poor evidence supporting them. What I'm saying does have scientific basis. If you do not agree, then please point out the contradictions.
If you actually do have a better more coherent analysis and result, I will change my mind but so far, you've not demonstrated this.

thehomer:

What magic?

You are very adept at sleight of hand, Sir and I will point some obvious examples out from the following

thehomer:

You have not presented anything that may be considered as truth.

One liners that simply state - I have made up my mind and do not wish to be confused by facts.

thehomer:

It's not that wild.

Lets say Ok then, its a bit wild. And that is what you base your belief system upon?

thehomer:

This is a bad analogy because the universe is not like a vehicle.

Sleight of hand - NOTHING can be compared to the universe. Why? You have NO idea. But still insist - nothing is like this universe. Whats the difference between the universe and my hard-disk? You don't know YET nothing is like the universe.

thehomer:

Universe-like objects are objects such as the universe which had pure energy prior to the commencement of time. Of which we know of one such object which is this universe.

Another example would be WHAT? How do you come up now with "pure" energy and a "time" prior to the commencement of "time". This is becoming rather childish and ridiculous, isn't it? Now there is "pure" energy. And that "pure" energy existed before time in what? A void? Do you read what you type? Your words repeatedly contradict themselves and the best you come back with is "bad analogy", "implied insults" and the like.

thehomer:

Yes that energy state was already existent but that does not make the state eternal because we are obviously not in that state currently. So, what we can say is that the energy of the universe (not matter or time) may be eternal. With better evidence, I'll be able to get better results. Though there are other hypotheses, this seems to be more consistent.

The energy "MAY" be eternal. But above, its not eternal but only was present in its apparently "pure" form at the big bang. And when you say we are not YET in that state currently, what do you mean? Eternity is from always to forever but here you state we've not started it? WTF?

thehomer:

I don't think it is a good strategy to keep holding on to beliefs with evidence to the contrary or with poor evidence supporting them. What I'm saying does have scientific basis. If you do not agree, then please point out the contradictions.
If you actually do have a better more coherent analysis and result, I will change my mind but so far, you've not demonstrated this.

Brief summary from your words above alone (not going further back) --- >> You believe in NO eternity. You still believe however, that time is timeless AKA eternal because energy "always" existed. You insist nothing is like the universe but cannot tell why the universe is different from everything else. In effect, you don't know why it is different yet you insist it is different. Then you say eternity hasn't started.

You have NO evidence about "pure" energy.
You have NO evidence about it existing at this big bang.
You have NO evidence that this supposed big bang ever happened.
You have NO evidence that the universe had this "pure" energy prior to the commencement of time
You even have NO evidence about timelessness since you believe there was a startpoint.

Yet you can complain about "poor evidence". Interesting

thehomer:

Universe-like objects are objects such as the universe which had pure energy prior to the commencement of time. Of which we know of one such object which is this universe.

These specious arguments of yours are making no sense anymore, thehomer.

What is your evidence for this special pleading you refer to as Universe-like objects?

Hydrogen-like objects are objects such as hydrogen which are colourless, odourless, highly flammable and diatomic, univalent and nonmetallic. Of which we know of one such object which is hydrogen, the simplest and lightest and most abundant element in the universe.

Have I said anything in the above?

Una norr go kill me with laughter with all these meretricious gimcrack you try to present as arguments.

thehomer's own arguments have serially defeated him. The contradictions inherent in his surmise are most alarming.

- - -> he states that "universe-like objects may just exist" - - -> If this is not as magical as the supposed claim of the religionist, I do not know what else is.

- - -> he states that there was a state of pure energy "prior to the big bang.' I wonder where his timeline is for such a state?

- - - > And yet he keeps demanding a timeline from everybody else for the existence of anything prior to the big bang!

Mrhomer - where is your timeline for the existence of "pure energy" PRIOR to the big bang? ? ?

It is particularly sickening that he repeatedly uses the refrain "prior to the big bang", without recognising that the very use of the word "prior" already indicates a timeline. Otherwise one could NOT use a word such as "prior."

Notions of "before" and "after" are of course necessarily bound to time - THIS IS INDUBITABLE.

I noted that I did explain to him why self-existent things could not be physical. He asked for an elaboration of the concept of self-existence, which i obliged. He has since gone silent on that one.

It is incredible to define anything material or physical as self-existent: because such things are changeable. Self-existence denotes immutability.

At all events I am not best pleased that this has snowballed into the cosmological argument: whereas I set up the OP as an argument for design.

Mrhomer is yet to explain away the obvious intricate design and attention to detail involved in the design of this naturally occuring water crystal -

@Deep Sight:

You can hardly divorce cosmology and intelligent design without splitting hairs. They are threads intricately interwoven into a garment of the universe's existence. I see your point though. Intelligent design is a bottom-up view. Cosmological arguments are top-down.

Yes indeed.

What I need to know is -

- What brought about the space into which things are interpolated? That space into which the uiniverse is expanding into, for example?

- what thereafter brings complex and patterned systems driven towards functionalities into existence?

- why should the universe be bothered to evolve such complex living patterns - for what purpose exactly?

- why do the evolutionary forces tend towards such complex living patterns at all?

The robust design evident in living things is much too much to deny.

It is impossible to deny the hand of intricate design in the things around us: particularly in living things.

Any person who claims to be a scientist should recognise this. Eminent scientists such as Darwin and Einstein whose theories form the basis fo atheistic arguments today actually recognised themselves the vast design inherent in the world around us and particularly in living things and severally stated that for such reasons they could not preclude the idea of intelligent design.

Just consider the workings of the eye alone, for example.

Who cannot look at a single strand of DNA and not be dumbstruck by the profound detail.

You cannot consider the workings of the human brain and conceivably conclude that a mindless and purposeless universe led to the evolution of such a precise and intricate purpose-oriented tool for the delivery and experience of conscious life.

You cannot deny the design inherent in a water crystal.

You cannot explain away the migratory instincts of clue-less animals to lands thay have never known before across hundreds of thousands of miles. These things are awe inspiring.

^^^^

Well said. Let me perch and wait to see what the brilliant scientists have to say.

Heck, there is no way any person who claims to be a serious thinker can even attribute the composition, functionalities and workings of a single white blood cell to blind chance.

Each of these things is itself a purpose oriented factory with amazing functiuonalitities.

http://www.williamsclass.com/SeventhScienceWork/CellsOrganization.htm

Being following this for a while. I do think the actual presence of d creator is his best proof. Perceived design could be illusory. As to op, its probable. Complexity could also be owed to chance. Why is there conflict? Them david hume question for what reason is man created and the universe as a whole.