Deep Sight: @ Jayriginal,

I am in the middle of preparing a response to you. But something just occured to me regarding one of your responses, and I'd just like to get it quickly out of the way.

Can you answer these two sets of quick questions for me?

First Set

1. You affirmed twice that you accept the law of cause and effect for material things. Confirm again please.

2. Is the universe a material thing?

Second Set

1. You stated that the qualification "As far as we know" denotes an argument from ignorance.

2. Do you agree that this qualification applies to ALL knowledge of mankind?

3. Does it not therefore follow that everything mankind knows and says simply amounts to arguments and statements from ignorance?

Thanks.

I will kindly ask you to quote me on "accepting" the law of cause and effect not once, but twice. If you cant, please bring it up no more.

I do not recall saying "as far as we know" denotes an argument from ignorance. Kindly quote that also so I may set the record straight. Indeed, the path my argument has taken is not to rubbish such provisos but to point to you that such a proviso can only mean that the information is not yet wholly conclusive. As such, there may yet be new discoveries that may completely verify the information, strengthen it, or even discard it.
If you disagree with me, you may cast your CA in the following form

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, Whatever begins to exist has a cause
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe began to exist
therefore AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe has a cause.

Im sure you dont like the look of this new CA though quite frankly that is what you are saying.

Deep Sight:
I am sure I did not say that it was the most convincing argument for the existence of God. I said it was one of the most convincing. Now the key point which you seem to be missing is that in discussing the issue, we perforce consider the premises on which the cosmological argument is hinged.

You are right. You didnt actually say it was the most convincing argument. You actually said it was the BEST argument. I reproduce your post in full below. The fact that you have changed your stance might indicate that I am making some progress with you. Read your post in full.

Deep Sight: Jayriginal -

The best argument for the existence of God is simple. Its called the cosmological argument. It goes largely as follows -

1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause

2. The Universe BEGAN to exist

3. The Universe has a cause

The foregoing can be summarized as an offshoot from the laws of motion. Nothing can move without a triggering factor. NOTHING. The big bang was a major movement. It thus required a triggering factor. This CANNOT be disputed.

The only question therefore remains the NATURE of the triggering factor.

For that - I advance to you the argument that nothing can evolve from anything that does not bear elements of the succeeding thing within it. This wraps up the existence of God.

Also, the experiments of Louis Pasteur - life can only come from pre existing life.

Olaadegbu may make a caricature of proper arguments in the way he goes about it - but the fundamental sensing of a pre-existent purposeful cause is definitively correct.

What is this horrible new format on NL by the way, YUCK! Mods, remove it!
MY EDIT:
Quoted For Truth

Those premises are in line with common observation and common logic.

I havent denied that "as far as we know". I dont think however that the second premise "the Universe began to exist" is exactly in line with "common observation and common logic". I think the point is debatable.

A person such as you, who contradicts them by referring to them as baseless assumptions, will have to show exactly why they are so: given the fact that in all that we observe, nothing moves without a triggering factor. The onus to show why this is a “baseless assumption” or “junk” as you put it, must rest squarely on you. because you are the one advancing a notion contrary to common observation and common logic

Well, I'm pretty sure I didnt call them baseless assumption (feel free to quote me if I did). I'm pretty sure I said somewhere I could understand your reasons for the assumptions and also I'm pretty sure I had no quarrel with the "as far as we know" presumption.

Nevertheless I will not make heavy weather of this point: wherever the burden of proof rests is not so important: readers will at all events be able to decide for themselves that which is in line with logic, based on what is put forward.

Fine.

As such, you may either put forward your foot, or withhold it: it’s your choice. No matter.

Fine again.

This is a very disturbing thing for you to argue or state! I hope you realize that all knowledge that mankind has – and will ever have, - will always remain “as far as we know” – as such – everything that mankind will ever know – in your summation, kind sir – will simply eternally be statements of ignorance!

Again, this point is debatable. Very very debatable but it is too much of a distraction here. I indicated earlier that I do not have a problem with the "as far as we know" proviso.
It simply shows that the knowledge is inconclusive. When you now argue universal application of a statement limited by the "as far as we know clause" then, you argue from ignorance. Simple !

Clap for yasef!

As soon as you see the obvious.

I hope you can see the meaning in this: that it makes no sense to deride statements made on the basis of known observation as being arguments from ignorance.

You argue in a funny way. Do you know what it means to be "known". If it were "known", you wouldnt say "as far as we know".

This is especially so when the statements made are based on very simple knowledge which it is fair to say is conclusive: such as the composition of water for example. Thus, when the most simple and fundamental laws of motion are used in concluding that everything that moves requires a triggering factor, it is very strange, and even absurd, I think, to describe such as an argument or statement from ignorance.

There you go again. Water molecules and the Universe. A very bad comparison as I have tried to show you.

It is actually an argument or statement based on current knowledge - which knowledge has NOT YET been disproven, and which may not be disproven.

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Really !

Accordingly, there isn’t one single bit of concluded knowledge anywhere in mankind’s history, because, as I already told you, all knowledge is only “as far as we know.”

Again this point is very debatable.

I hope you can see how terribly tedious and untenable your “argument from ignorance” idea is, with regard to this discussion.

The reverse actually.

And yet, I say to you again, that since in ALL that we observe, we see causative chains – it behoves you to bring to the table even just one example of an uncaused material thing – and then and only then, can your declaration that we are making assumptions be taken seriously.

The old "I cant prove my case, so let him disprove mine or I win" trick. It wont happen.
You asserted, you prove !



Reading your other responses will reply when I'm done.

Deep Sight:

The primary reason I discard the entire write-up is that it states that it is addressing itself against the view that the universe must have required a super-natural miraculous event to have caused it.

This is pointless for me because I do not believe in any supernatural or miraculous events.

I believe that everything is natural and follows logic, including God itself.

You think god is natural and logical ?
I'm sorry but one does not get this impression from you. Not in the least.

This is shocking reasoning actually. It often surprises me the way people dig up very mediocre writings with very poor logic and then refer to such as some sort of authourity. Much the way people point to Richard Dawkin’s writings – which are frankly kindergarten-ish discourses.

Says the lawyer with no training in the sciences. You do not have the academic right to call Dawkins or Mills or Stenger mediocre. You can disagree with them all you want though.
Obviously whatever disagrees with you is mediocre and what you read actually nourishes some of the spurious ideas you dump on this forum.

Just look at the above. I will break it down and comment on it.

It says –

“In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than common, everyday experience. That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat.

Just look at this, and for the sake of Helen of Troy, please bring out your honest hat. This statement infers that observations based on common, everyday experience are not to be trusted. Is this your view, Jay?

*Puts on honest hat and winks in the mirror*
It infers no such thing. That is a very narrow and simplistic (not to mention wildly incorrect) interpretation of the statement.
What it says is the same thing I've been trying to tell you. Our "common everyday experience" is very limited. Let me repeat that. Our "common everyday experience" is very limited.
One cannot make sweeping assumptions regarding the Universe with no verification except our "common everyday experience".
That is all.

Do you think for example that our common everyday observation that people need to breathe in order to survive should perhaps be derided as an argument or statement from ignorance?

Not necessarily. It depends on how you make your argument. Interestingly, someone once quipped "what if oxygen was really poisonous and takes an average of seventy years to kill us".
Of course, that is not to be taken seriously, but think about it all the same.

This writer is inferring that relying on common everyday experience leads to conclusions such as a flat earth. Is this correct? I think verily not. In the first place, the flat earth notion was wrong not because people relied on common experience – it was wrong because they didn’t rely on the proper common experience. The proper common experience would simply have been something like looking round at the circular horizon, and several other apt common experiences that ought to have shown a flat earth notion to have been wrong. As such, the mere fact that people sometimes select wrong experiences to decide their conclusions and therefore come to wrong notions DOES NOT IN ANYWAY MEAN THAT IT IS BAD, WRONG, OR ILLOGICAL TO RELY ON COMMON EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION IN DRAWING CONCLUSIONS

It is easy to say this in retrospect and considering the age you live in. Knowledge grows and past wisdom seems like folly, yet we build on the knowledge of the past to progress. Doctors of the recent past may laugh at the concept of humours and the leeching of blood yet leeching has gained some new respect in modern medicine today. Even maggots are used in medicine today.
If you were there in the times when the earth was flat, the chances that you would have been one of the believers in a flat earth are extremely high.
Even if we assume that people selected bad experiences, that was the truth "as far as they knew". Curiously, it raises the question how do you know your premises are correct.
Your answer is ; as far as we know, we see the laws of cause and effect around us and our common observation and common logic support the premise.

How do we know you arent selecting bad experiences ?
How ?

Converning your last line, I have neither said and nor has he, that "IT IS BAD, WRONG, OR ILLOGICAL TO RELY ON COMMON EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION IN DRAWING CONCLUSIONS" .
No Sir. Stop changing the argument.

Indeed, I might ask you what is to be relied on, if not such?

Subtle strawman you have set up there. I havent said "common every day experience", "common knowledge", "as far as we know" etc are useless to us. I have tried to impress on you the limited nature of such things especially juxtaposed with the vastness of the Universe.

Your write further states –

“In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.”

I would invite you that we should take this up in a thread I opened some days ago specifically for such –

https://www.nairaland.com/906545/radioactive-decay-as-argument-existence

I saw the thread. Not interested. I've said before that science isnt exactly relevant to my lack of beliefs. I did say earlier you should do some research and that I'd only cut and paste here for you if I found it necessary or thought it useful.
I posted those chapters for you to see something different from what you prefer to read.
If you wish to debate the points, its not with me. You can do so by private correspondence with the authors. I will only highlight points you misunderstand as I did above.

I think this is wrong for the simple reason that it leaps over the first and most fundamental question of the creation riddle: why something instead of nothing? There must be a something in existence – of whatever nature – before things can happen “accidentally” to such a “something.” This is why I say these write-ups are kindergartenish. Do accidents happen to, within, or from a “nothing”?

I see the final installment has some thoughts on this question, but you will agree it simply attempts to wish the question away and does not in anyway answer it! Indeed the final paragraphs are the worse pieces of spin, illogic and pseudo-science I have ever seen in my life. Its not necesasry to believe in God, but its shameful for people to go to the length of such twisted spin and obvious illogic simply to murder the God they anyway claim is non-existent.

You think !!!
Very good my friend. Very good. A remarkable step forward. You are free to hold an opinion and share it till you are asked to stop.
However when you convert an opinion to fact and attempt to ram it down peoples throats then "yawa go gas".

I hope it was not a typo on your part. You have made me pause twice today. First when you referred to god as logical and natural and now saying "I think".

Anyway to the issue why something instead of nothing ?
Well the writer has written and you arent forced to accept his answers. They are clear enough. Call it a spin if you will. Thats not my problem.
I wonder if however you thought of defining "nothing".
Just a hint . . .

Deep Sight:

This last, is the most amazing piece of illogic I have ever encountered in my life.

In the first place, the writer has ZERO understanding of the concept of "nothing." He has assigned properties to "nothingness" - such as that it is "unstable"! Wow. I didn't know that "nothingness" could have properties! He goes further to say that the probability of something versus nothing even has a calculation.

This is spin: and pathetic spin at that. Do tell me you recognize spin when you see it. I certainly hope you dont have a knee-jerk approval of every pseudo-scientific write-up that simply is anti-God's existence.

It's simply horrible, twisted and also very ignorant. If you agree with that which is written here, do let me know, and we can then see further.

Good grief.

I did not post it because I agreed with it. I posted it because I wanted you to read something different from an expert in his field. I could care less for such things as I've explained before. You of course are free to disagree with it for various reasons. At least you read it.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but your field of expertise seems to be Law.
Lets look at the man who you selected your choice of words against.

Victor Stenger

Education and employment

In 1956, Stenger received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Newark College of Engineering (now the New Jersey Institute of Technology). He then moved to Los Angeles on a Hughes Aircraft Company fellowship. At UCLA, he earned a Master of Science in 1958, and a Ph.D. in 1963, both in physics.

Stenger was a member of the Department of Physics at the University of Hawaii until his 2000 retirement. He has held visiting positions on the faculties of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, Oxford University (twice), and has been a visiting researcher at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England, the National Nuclear Physics Laboratory in Frascati, Italy, and the University of Florence in Italy. He is currently an Emeritus Professor of physics at the University of Hawaii, and Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado. He is a fellow of CSICOP and a research fellow of the Center for Inquiry.

Scientist

Stenger's research career, which ran from the 1960s through the late 1990s, involved work that determined properties of gluons, quarks, strange particles, and neutrinos. Stenger was a pioneer in the emerging research focused on neutrino astronomy and very high-energy gamma rays. His final research project prior to retirement as an experimental physicist was participating in the Japan-based Super-Kamiokande underground experiment. This work demonstrated that the neutrino was massive. Masatoshi Koshiba, the leader of the project, won a share of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for his efforts.

Philosopher and skeptic

Stenger is now mainly known as an advocate of philosophical naturalism, skepticism, and atheism. He is a prominent critic of intelligent design and the aggressive use of the anthropic principle. He maintains that consciousness and free will, assuming that they in fact do exist, will eventually be explained in a scientific manner that invokes neither the mystical nor the supernatural. He has repeatedly criticized those who invoke the perplexities of quantum mechanics in support of the paranormal, mysticism, or supernatural phenomena, and has written several books and articles aiming to debunk contemporary pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

Take note of the last line before you accuse him of pseudoscience again.

And now your encyclopaedia based knowledge of the sciences doesnt seem to stack up nicely against Stenger does it ?

"As far as I know" Stenger is vastly more qualified than you on this matter.
That is all.

Deep Sight: ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


1)Actually, reading this definition of "Argument from ignorance" its very obvious that you are the one it applies to; for you are the one declaring that we do not know what may be disproven tomorrow. That is surely a cute argument from ignorance is it not?

2)Note also that it refers to relying on the fact that a proposition is not disproven yet.

3)That infers a sort of argument where a non-proven assertion is made, and then backed up with the fact that it is not disproven yet. You have to understand that it cannot refer to proven and observed phenomena.

4)Because if it does, then there is no use in saying or writing or even thinking anything at all, as all such will be branded statements or thoughts from ignorance.

You have interpretedx this very very very wrongly, my friend.

1) Wow, I cant believe you wrote that. The passage wasnt that difficult to comprehend.
Im not arguing from ignorance. I am asking for proof. I place no high value in common experience and common observation as proof of your premises. Rather you argue from ignorance when you positively assert that since common experience and observation have not been disproved, then they must hold true. And then you try to escape your burden of proof by asking for a counter example when I have not asserted anything.

2) YOU are the one relying on the fact that a proposition (whatever begins to exist has a cause) has not been disproven yet.

3) Your first two premises of the CA fall within this category of none proven assertions. When I ask for proof, you refer to "as far as we know", "common experience and observation" and the fact that they have not been disproved.
I on the other hand have made no assertion.

4) As I have stated on other posts, this is incorrect.

Deep Sight: Finally, your answers completely evaded the core contradictions I pointed out. You simply issued denials and then wrote on non-related matters. Address the contradictions squarely. One of them is -

1. You accept the law of cause and effect for material things

2. You accept that the universe is a material thing

3. You reject the first premise of the cosmological argument as a baseless assumption

4. And yet the first premise of the cosmological argument is simply a repetition of the law of cause and effect - which you say you accept!

I am mildly surprised on your reaction to the water analogy. You totally missed it. The analogy was directed at showing your mis-use of the "as far as we know" qualification.

There might be a version of me in your head that you argue with hence the mix up.
You continually distort my position and I'm not sure why.

Ive asked you to quote me on 1 ie that I accept the law of cause and effect. When you do that, we can address 2-4.

The water analogy I told you, was bad. I believe I addressed it appropriately. You must have missed the point because I also "assumed" and went into the "as far as we know" point (despite the analogy being a bad one).

All knowledge, my friend, will eternally remain "as far as we know".

You've said that before and my response is that it is debatable. Very debatable. I say so because I can see both sides of the argument. It is debatable.

That cannot render all knowledge "arguments or statements from ignorance."

If that were the case, my saying that "As far as we know, Jayriginal is a human being" will simply be a statement from ignorance, no?

I never said "as far as we know" renders all knowledge "arguments or or statements from ignorance".
You must distinguish between knowledge and an argument.
If we must argue, please do not distort my position. I will thank you gladly for that.

Finally just some thoughts.

On god
I hardly think we can argue god into or out of existence. If there is a god, there is one or many of them. If there isnt, there isnt. If there WAS, there was. Those are my thoughts on the matter.


On Arguments
Flowing from the above, we are free to argue and debate the existence or otherwise of god or gods. However, it is my firm conviction that logic cannot be used to prove gods existence. As such it is necessary to see things in perspective.

Let me assume there is/was a god. If we treat the assumption as fact, what can change that?

The CA is an UNSOUND ARGUMENT. It is unsound because the premises are not known to be true. They are assumed and the proof for this assumption is an argument from ignorance and also a compositional fallacy.

The CA may actually be true, but for now, that truth is not known. Because that truth is not known, the CA premises are assumptions stacked together.
Assumptions do not make a good argument.

On Interpretation
I have seen a shocking display of poor comprehension and misinterpretation, not just on this thread but on nairaland as a whole.
Once on another thread I stated that an agnostic was an atheist and someone turned it around and said that I said they were the same thing.

Many people think only in black and white and are blind to the full spectrum. For instance if someone asks me if I'm happy and I say "no", most people take it that since I am not happy, I must be sad. This is wrong.

When it comes to atheism, there is also a very very strong misconception. When I say I do not believe in god, I am not saying I believe there is no god.
This in particular is extremely difficult for people to get. Indeed some atheists believe there is no god but not all take that stance.

Its very difficult to argue with someone who keeps misunderstanding you every step of the way, particularly when you are not sure if it is deliberate or unintentional.



And now, this whole exercise is to show the CA for what it is a BAD/UNSOUND ARGUMENT for the existence of god. Even if I was staunchly religious, I would see through the CA immediately.
Actually on second thoughts, maybe I wouldnt. Maybe my bias for wanting a god to be would cloud my cognitive faculties and make me immune to obvious logic.

Demolishing the CA would not mean god does not exist, it just means that "the best" (in reality a bad argument) for the existence of god has been demolished.



Ironically, the CA does not actually prove god (which is where another set of problems probably more serious than those of the CA will emerge).

^ ^ ^ You cannot say that that which is observed in every single thing about us (causative chains) is "unproven" or "an assumption". That is the fundamental falsehood which you peddle which is shocking and untenable.

And, Stenger's definition of "nothing" is, and remains, frankly nonsensical. You cannot run away from that simply by citing his credentials. That's just an appeal to authourity. I asked you directly if "nothing" can have properties? You shied away from that and began to cite his credentials. That joker described "nothingness' as being "unstable". That is spin: and lousy spin at that; and you ought to have the courage to call it out for what it is.

Later.

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ You cannot say that that which is observed in every single thing about us (causative chains) is "unproven" or "an assumption". That is the fundamental falsehood which you peddle which is shocking and untenable.

Another strawman. I didnt say that. Quote me if I did. If you cant, then you are the one peddling falsehood.
It has been the unfortunate trend in this argument for you to distort and misconstrue what I say. The issues I raised are very simple to understand. I have tried to make myself as clear as possible yet you continually erect straw men as you go along. I'm finding it hard to believe you arent doing this deliberately as I do not want to consider the fact that these things are beyond your scope.

And, Stenger's definition of "nothing" is, and remains, frankly nonsensical. You cannot run away from that simply by citing his credentials.

Oh citing his credentials was for you to see how cheeky it is for you with a laymans knowledge of the sciences to call an expert in his field mediocre. You the layman, call the expert nonsensical/mediocre et al. Bravo !

More on this later.

That's just an appeal to authourity.

You are so predictable.
You really should look up the definition of appeal to authority.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

So my good friend, apart from that, you would need to quote me where I asserted that what Stenger wrote was true because he wrote it. Then you will have an appeal to authority.
I didnt appeal to authority, I simply showed you that you cannot hold a candle to the man in the field of science and so while you are free to disagree, your choice of words are inappropriate.
That is all.

I asked you directly if "nothing" can have properties? You shied away from that and began to cite his credentials. That joker described "nothingness' as being "unstable". That is spin: and lousy spin at that; and you ought to have the courage to call it out for what it is.

Well, I gave you a hint. I asked you if you could define nothing.
Take it up with Stenger if you wish to argue the properties of nothing. I gave you the reason why I posted the articles. I made the point earlier that I do not need science for my views. Also, to me, it is a derailing point (this nothing issue). It is another debate on its own and not a side issue.
You seem eager to put across your own "views" of science. However, I cannot take you seriously until you publish some peer reviewed papers which puts dents in the works of these "jokers" and "mediocre" scientists.

And now I find myself in the rather unfortunate but familiar place of having to correct you again. Behold, it is not Stenger that described nothing as unstable in the first place. Rather the "joker" as you refer to him is "Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek" . A view which Stenger seemingly supports.

Oh by the way there was something I thought you'd jump on, but you probably missed it. In the part where Stenger talks about "nothing" he does so "based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology". If you didnt miss it, you probably ignored it because you dont want to be arguing with yourself. Anyway, the below excerpts refer

In fact, we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that something is more natural than nothing!

. . . many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter.

The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable." In the non boundary scenario for the natural origin of the universe I mentioned earlier, the probability for there being something rather than nothing actually can be calculated; it is over 60 percent.

The reasoning is very clear. You argue against yourself when you now reject something based on the "best current knowledge of physics and cosmology".
Let me explain for you very simply what the passage conveys.

As far as we know, nature builds from simple to complex.
As far as we know, "nothing" is as simple as it gets
As far as we know, the progression will then be from "nothing", to something simple and complexity will ensue eventually
As far as we know, this progression is a NATURAL one not requiring any intervention
As far as we know, "nothing" remaining "nothing" would require supernatural intervention because the natural process would have been altered/violated.

Now feel free to reject the above if you wish. That is simply what the passage conveys.

Later.

Ciao.

This is actually one of the strangest conversations I have ever had on this forum. I doubt that I have ever been confronted with a greater degree of bizarre suppositions and willfull ostrich-playing than I have seen on this thread. At this point it is obvious that we are not in a thousand years going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but before I let the matter finally rest, I need to point out and restate a number of things. I am certain you will still play the ostrich and refuse to see that which is unspeakably simple, but I will set them all out for the sake of the reader who may happen upon this thread at any time in the future.

To be honest, I don’t think that I can successfully mention all the gravely strange and terrifyingly illogical suppositions which you have advanced in this discussion. Compounded by the, might I say, cowardly, and at times contradictory refusal to support that which you say. In one breath you say you have no need to rely on science for anything that you say: this informs your refusal up till date to advance even a single example of an uncaused material thing. I think that this is most cowardly and even unsporting. But it pales into insignificance beside the fact that in another breath, the self-same YOU, produce for me the writings of Stenger, in which he makes mention of supposedly uncaused physical phenomena. When I ask you to discuss these: you again balk, and say that you are not interested. Well then, kind sir, please refrain from cutting and pasting things to me which you then proceed to state you are not interested in discussing! That comes across as both cowardly and dishonest, and I sincerely mean no insult there bro. It is rather unseemly that we would have a discussion which devolves on these self same issues: and you would repeatedly claim that you have no need to give a single example of that which you advance: you would then subtly do so by quoting someone else; and then bluntly refuse to discuss that which you have quoted.

I have had a lot of trouble on this forum with people who have conducted themselves in a similar manner. In all cases they end up saying the very same things about me which you are now saying: namely that I am deliberately misconstruing their words, and other such. In my view, the truth is simply that people do not like the appearance of that which they themselves have uttered once I show them the logical implications of their very own words.

There are many things which you have said explicitly on this thread: and which you now are appearing to deny. In this post, I will not bother to quote them: once I am done in this post, I will reserve my next post to extracting those quotes and shewing them unto thee, that thou mayest behold for thyself that which thou hast done and said. For my part, let me here accept that yes, you were right that I said the Cosmological Argument was the best argument. I didn’t remember my exact words, and I accept that. At all events, it is an excellent argument in my view: and it stands to common reason and logic. And yes, I do emphatically reject your notion that it is based on assumptions – that is in itself an eminently absurd notion – and your notion that it is “junk” is beyond untenable: it is unintelligible.

The Pith of the Discourse

You assert that the Cosmological Argument is based on ‘assumptions.’ I say that it is not. I say that it is based on that which we observe as common place in all that we see.

You assert that we cannot rely on that which we observe and know because it is possible that we may know differently tomorrow. I assert that until we know differently, we cannot assume that which we currently observe to be false. This only stands to reason. The only person working with assumptions here is the person who hinges his argument on an imagination about futuristic knowledge which he knows nothing of. His basis for assuming that current knowledge could be rendered false tomorrow is the fact that some pieces of knowledge have been rendered false in the past. He is making assumptions. But he alleges that the man who stands firmly on currently observed and commonsensical knowledge, is the one arguing from ignorance. This is frankly unbelievable.

Now lets take it step by step again.

In discussing the validity of the Cosmological Argument, we naturally assess the premises upon which it is built. Those very premises are what you describe as assumptions. It beggars belief for you to be able to sit poker faced and call basic principles observed in everyday existence “assumptions.” It seems to me that the weight of your very absurd statement is lost on you. You fail to recognize that your very existence is predicated on the so called ‘assumption’ that you now deride. Because the fact of the matter is that you, Mr. Jayriginal, and every single thing, person or process that you have known and interacted with since you were born – ALL operate within causative chains. As such the law of cause and effect is hardwired into all that we know of and observe. As such it is staggering that anyone would refer to the law of cause and effect in material phenomena as “as assumption.”

It is sad, that people force themselves into making such eminently absurd statements simply on account of a desperation to deny causality in the universe: and therewith perhaps deny the existence of God.

My friend: If I’ve said it once, i’ve said it a thousand times; the first premise of the cosmological argument is nothing but the law of cause and effect. The same law operative in the fact that nothing may move without a triggering factor. These are so basic, and so unfathomably commonsensical, that I still cannot believe I am writing pages and pages in trying to make a fellow man see that he cannot sit back and deride these as assumptions. These laws are so intrinsic to the nature of reality, and so commonsensical that you must understand my strain, when I am then called upon to “adduce proof” of same! It is frankly staggering, that you cannot see that any person making suggestions against basic causality is rather the person who needs to adduce proof.

All he needs to do is produce one single example of an uncaused material thing.

Now rather than do that, you, who are arguing against basic and commonly observed causality, sit back and state that you have no need to adduce even a single example!

Astonishing!

However it is obvious that the sources you cite do not agree with you on that score. They clearly recognize the need to adduce examples of their staggering claims. That is why you have had various people citing examples such as virtual particles, radioactive decay, and proton decay, as uncaused phenomena. I said, very well, let us discuss this, and what’s your reaction? No! “I don’t rely on science! I have no need for examples! Etc!”

Say what you will, but that just amounts to throwing in the towel and shirking the debate. I retreat from nothing: you repeatedly retreating from discussing these casts your position in very poor light – it makes it abundantly obvious that you simply dread the fact that these would be shown up to be nonsensical propositions in the same way as virtual particles being uncaused has been shown to be not just nonsensical, but frankly ediotic. I opened a thread to discuss the radioactive decay thing, again, you balked. You say you are not interested. And in the OP there, I showed that I could not see how that adds up. Silence from you when the science comes up. And yet you quote for me the credentials of others and expect me to thereby take your argument seriously? The truth is that you have said one big fat nothing throughout this thread! “I don’t need examples. I don’t rely on science. I don’t need proof” etc. That amounts to zero over ten, son. You aint said nada. Probably because your argument is nada.

So that is the first and most basic point in this discussion: namely that the first premise of the Cosmological Argument is nothing but a repetition of the law of cause and effect: the self same rule observable in all motion about us. If you wish to call it an assumption, then you necessarily call the law of cause and effect an assumption. You necessarily also call the laws of motion nothing but assumptions. The second premise follows naturally and holds true: it holds true even if one argues that the singularity always existed: it holds true for the simple reason that, whatever it was, the expansion called the big bang was movement. As such, it required a trigger.

Now I am painfully struck by the fact that the atheistic scientist who derides mythical religious notions, in his desperate bid to deny the existence of a primordial causative factor, proceeds to tender the most magical and unscientific notions imaginable: movement without any trigger, expansions without any causation, voodoo and black magic of the most laughable kind: and you sit here and expect me to take these notions seriously. What do you do? You begin to cite to me the academic qualifications of the people who say these things. And by the way, yes, that is nothing but appealing to authority. I see no reason why else you would set out their academic or other qualifications within the context of this debate. Frankly, their qualifications are useless. If they peddle ridiculous notions such as these, they are dunderheaded dolts who have wasted their time being educated in the first place. YES: NA ME TALK AM.

Now when these things are put to you, you assert that one is advancing an argument from ignorance. You fail to make the most elementary distinction between proven concepts and unproven concepts. In the notion that you advance, every single piece of knowledge in mankind’s history is nothing but arguments and statements from ignorance. Because you fail to recognize that everything we know, and will ever know, is “as far as we know”. That is so simple, I honestly don’t know how it could elude you. We can only know as far as we know. As such, the term “as far as we know” is a valid prefix to every single statement that we can make. In your rendition of things, this means that every statement that we can make is only made from ignorance. That is wrong: the statements are made from that which we know: if you know differently, dunk the proof on the table son, it’s that simple.

Having said this, yes, I accept your rendition of the CA as you wrote it –

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, Whatever begins to exist has a cause
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe began to exist
therefore AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe has a cause.

Works for me!

That simply means that “As far as we know, your position is and remains wrong.”

Until and unless proven otherwise.

Simples.

Just so you recognize how tedious you are being, I once advanced the simple equation 0 + 0 = 0 to an atheist on this forum. Such a simple and obviously true equation. He raked up a storm about it – screaming that that was only “as far as we know” and could be wrong elsewhere. Quaint! Now its your turn I guess. Perhaps if I tell you that I am typing this text using my fingers on a keyboard, you will remind me that that is only as far as we know. Ride on.

Now just a postscript on “nothingness”. “Nothingness” is not “the simplest state of things” or some other such hogwash recalibrated in different words. Nothing is exactly what the word states: nothing at all. By very definition, it is non existent. It is thus beyond absurd to ascribe properties such as instability to “nothingness.” It’s nonsensically silly. I don’t care who wrote it or how many prizes they won. Its dirty, empty, clueless frog spin, and I will not have it.

Tragedy is, you, who wish to sit with science (whilst refusing to discuss science), are the one who offers up this pot of ludicruous voodoo whilst attempting to debunk simple commonsense, and calling such common sense “assumptions”.

Repeated Post. Deleted.

Repeated Post. Deleted.

Repeated Post. Deleted.

Deep Sight: This is actually one of the strangest conversations I have ever had on this forum. I doubt that I have ever been confronted with a greater degree of bizarre suppositions and willfull ostrich-playing than I have seen on this thread. At this point it is obvious that we are not in a thousand years going to see eye-to-eye on this issue

Well I warned you about that. Unfortunately, it has been worse than I expected.

To be honest, I don’t think that I can successfully mention all the gravely strange and terrifyingly illogical suppositions which you have advanced in this discussion.

If anyone has been "illogical" its you. You cannot or refuse to see the obvious. Your preferred mode of argument is construction of strawmen and other assorted fallacies. I remember cautioning you on at least one thread that you tend to assume what you seek to prove.

Compounded by the, might I say, cowardly, and at times contradictory refusal to support that which you say. In one breath you say you have no need to rely on science for anything that you say: this informs your refusal up till date to advance even a single example of an uncaused material thing. I think that this is most cowardly and even unsporting. But it pales into insignificance beside the fact that in another breath, the self-same YOU, produce for me the writings of Stenger, in which he makes mention of supposedly uncaused physical phenomena. When I ask you to discuss these: you again balk, and say that you are not interested. Well then, kind sir, please refrain from cutting and pasting things to me which you then proceed to state you are not interested in discussing! That comes across as both cowardly and dishonest, and I sincerely mean no insult there bro. It is rather unseemly that we would have a discussion which devolves on these self same issues: and you would repeatedly claim that you have no need to give a single example of that which you advance: you would then subtly do so by quoting someone else; and then bluntly refuse to discuss that which you have quoted.

On the contrary, I have not "said" anything. I have merely asked for proof. It is infact you who has been cowardly by asking for examples when your own case cannot stand.
I have quoted the bible several times on this forum. This hardly means I believe in it. Some christians quote the Quran in their debates with muslims. This also does not mean they believe in or agree with it. I have also sometimes been found on the muslim side of a debate and because of that someone ignorantly referred to me as boko haram. That is the kind of thing you are doing here.

I gave my reasons for quoting Stenger and Mills.
You need to show me where I relied upon them. Then and only then would you have a point. I am not interested in discussing these things and I can understand your frustration and not being able to go off on a tangent with the pseudo-science you love so much but understand this clearly; in matters of religion, science plays a minor role.

I read science literature when I feel like, not to start debating the finer points of evolution or cosmology or any such thing.

I hope you get the point. The fact that I put material is not by default an endorsement of such material. You are free to disagree and put forth your reasons for so doing and I am content to leave it at that unless your disagreement is a misinterpretation of what the passage/author/article is saying.

I have had a lot of trouble on this forum with people who have conducted themselves in a similar manner. In all cases they end up saying the very same things about me which you are now saying: namely that I am deliberately misconstruing their words, and other such. In my view, the truth is simply that people do not like the appearance of that which they themselves have uttered once I show them the logical implications of their very own words.

Oh good. Its not just me. Well, if a lot of people are saying that, why dont you look inward then ?
You arent showing logical implications, you are setting up strawmen and knocking them down.
While it is possible that these "many" people are wrong and you are right, the truth is that you are more likely to be wrong.

There are many things which you have said explicitly on this thread: and which you now are appearing to deny. In this post, I will not bother to quote them: once I am done in this post, I will reserve my next post to extracting those quotes and shewing them unto thee, that thou mayest behold for thyself that which thou hast done and said.

I would very much like that.

For my part, let me here accept that yes, you were right that I said the Cosmological Argument was the best argument. I didn’t remember my exact words, and I accept that.

No big deal. It happens.

At all events, it is an excellent argument in my view: and it stands to common reason and logic.

It is not an excellent argument but if you say in your view, you are entitled to that.

And yes, I do emphatically reject your notion that it is based on assumptions – that is in itself an eminently absurd notion – and your notion that it is “junk” is beyond untenable: it is unintelligible.

It is based on assumptions for the simple reason that you do not "know" the truth about the premises.
About the "junk", you keep hammering on that. Was that the first thing I said ? No it wasnt. Thats a pretty weak thing to hold on to you know. Junk/bad argument/unsound argument/rubbish whatever. It doesnt matter because you set out to prove and you have failed to do that.

The Pith of the Discourse

You assert that the Cosmological Argument is based on ‘assumptions.’ I say that it is not. I say that it is based on that which we observe as common place in all that we see.

Which you "assume" applies universally because you do not know for a fact that it does.

You assert that we cannot rely on that which we observe and know because it is possible that we may know differently tomorrow.

Another strawman. Please quote me on this. I clearly did not say that.

I assert that until we know differently, we cannot assume that which we currently observe to be false. This only stands to reason.

Another example of you misconstruing my position. I am not assuming anything. I have been thinking in possibilities and you have been thinking in certainties. I do not assume that anything we currently observe is false. I simply ask how you know that which you assert and on what basis you rule out other possibilities.
We are not talking of water molecules here, we are talking about the Universe. An immense subject even with the intellectual and technological advance of mankind today.
No assumptions on my part here.

The only person working with assumptions here is the person who hinges his argument on an imagination about futuristic knowledge which he knows nothing of. His basis for assuming that current knowledge could be rendered false tomorrow is the fact that some pieces of knowledge have been rendered false in the past. He is making assumptions. But he alleges that the man who stands firmly on currently observed and commonsensical knowledge, is the one arguing from ignorance. This is frankly unbelievable.

I am not assuming anything. You are the one so doing. Its really sad the way you twist these things and make it seem like you are saying something tangible. It makes no sense to say I "assume" that current knowledge "could" be rendered false. That is not an assumption. Let us be specific (before you construct another straw man).

All I have said is that concerning your first two premises (since the Universe is a vast subject) common observation is not sufficient proof. I gave examples on simpler subjects where common observation and current knowledge were discarded.
This, any objective person should see.
Also you argue from ignorance when your basis of believing something is that it has not been disproved. So yes, you are arguing from ignorance.

Now lets take it step by step again.

Ok

In discussing the validity of the Cosmological Argument, we naturally assess the premises upon which it is built. Those very premises are what you describe as assumptions. It beggars belief for you to be able to sit poker faced and call basic principles observed in everyday existence “assumptions.” It seems to me that the weight of your very absurd statement is lost on you. You fail to recognize that your very existence is predicated on the so called ‘assumption’ that you now deride. Because the fact of the matter is that you, Mr. Jayriginal, and every single thing, person or process that you have known and interacted with since you were born – ALL operate within causative chains. As such the law of cause and effect is hardwired into all that we know of and observe. As such it is staggering that anyone would refer to the law of cause and effect in material phenomena as “as assumption.”

I do describe the premises as assumptions for the very elementary reason that they are not "known" to be true. You may wish to search the posts and quote me if I said they were not true.
You on the other hand positively and widely assert them to be true. I'm sure you do not "know" this. Nobody does. So when you exclude every other possibility on the basis that no one has proven the contrary, you argue from ignorance and make assumptions. In addition, you have thrown in a compositional fallacy as well.
You've served up a rich salad of logical fallacies.
Sure we observe things that are caused/have beginnings. No one can argue otherwise. The issue is how much have we observed ? How far and wide do our observations apply ?
What percentage of the secrets of the Universe have we discovered. On an issue as wide as the Universe, you feel very comfortable asserting what you do not know on the grounds of your common and limited experience ?

It is sad, that people force themselves into making such eminently absurd statements simply on account of a desperation to deny causality in the universe: and therewith perhaps deny the existence of God.

I'll tell you whats sad. The inability to conform with basic logic in an ironic attempt to logically and empirically prove the existence of god. You need to show where I have denied causality.

This argument will not bring god into existence or take it out of existence. For one, even if we accept the premises and conclusion, all it shows is that the Universe was "caused". When you get to trying to associate the cause with god, the hurdles you will meet will be very steep indeed.
However the main point is to show you the insufficiency of the evidence you adduce in favour of the CA.

My friend: If I’ve said it once, i’ve said it a thousand times; the first premise of the cosmological argument is nothing but the law of cause and effect. The same law operative in the fact that nothing may move without a triggering factor. These are so basic, and so unfathomably commonsensical, that I still cannot believe I am writing pages and pages in trying to make a fellow man see that he cannot sit back and deride these as assumptions. These laws are so intrinsic to the nature of reality, and so commonsensical that you must understand my strain, when I am then called upon to “adduce proof” of same! It is frankly staggering, that you cannot see that any person making suggestions against basic causality is rather the person who needs to adduce proof.

Oh you have adduced "proof" quite alright and your proof is "common sense", "common observation", "as far as we know" etc.
I can understand your reasons for being swayed by these. It is natural. However much of science is not common sense or common observation. Your common phenomena is limited. This you cannot disagree with. My point is simple. You cannot take your limited knowledge and apply it to a subject as vast as the Universe and call that proof. Thats bad.

All he needs to do is produce one single example of an uncaused material thing.

Now rather than do that, you, who are arguing against basic and commonly observed causality, sit back and state that you have no need to adduce even a single example!

Astonishing!

Argument from ignorance.
I'd have thought by now you would drop some of these horrible "points' you make.
Listen, for the umpteenth time I will tell you. The onus is not on me. Its on you to prove your premises. You have sought to do that and your premises are insufficient. I am questioning, not asserting. You cannot shift the burden.
For some reason you cannot grasp what I am saying though it is very simple indeed.

However it is obvious that the sources you cite do not agree with you on that score. They clearly recognize the need to adduce examples of their staggering claims. That is why you have had various people citing examples such as virtual particles, radioactive decay, and proton decay, as uncaused phenomena. I said, very well, let us discuss this, and what’s your reaction? No! “I don’t rely on science! I have no need for examples! Etc!”

Agree with me on what score ? That there are uncaused things ? Have I said that anywhere ? Quote me directly if I have.
I do not need to argue with you on anything regarding science. I'm sure you wont find a single scientific argument in my posts on nairaland. I may post the occasional article, make a comment or two (particularly when people take it out of context) but argue on science, not me.
And no, I dont need any examples. I'm not the one that is touting the premises of the CA as fact based on common observation etc.
Again I would remind you that you are no expert in the sciences. You will not be the first to raise these issues which is why I was asking you to do your research and look at it from both angles. These issues have been raised before and will continue to be raised. Its not my field of expertise and neither is it yours.
If you want to play make believe scientist, you have to find another playmate. It wont be me.

Say what you will, but that just amounts to throwing in the towel and shirking the debate.

Another Deep Sight specialty.

I retreat from nothing: you repeatedly retreating from discussing these casts your position in very poor light – it makes it abundantly obvious that you simply dread the fact that these would be shown up to be nonsensical propositions in the same way as virtual particles being uncaused has been shown to be not just nonsensical, but frankly ediotic.

Beyond ridiculous. You are no scientist. All you do is read up spurious stuff that supports your claim and come here and spew over the pages. Spare me abeg.
I'm not dreading anything. For someone who keeps talking about common sense, you cant see it when you read it.

I opened a thread to discuss the radioactive decay thing, again, you balked. You say you are not interested. And in the OP there, I showed that I could not see how that adds up.

You are a funny chap. I dont want to play make believe scientist.

Silence from you when the science comes up. And yet you quote for me the credentials of others and expect me to thereby take your argument seriously?

Well, you will need to show me where I said I relied on those pages. I gave them to you not to persuade you but to see something different from your preferred reading material.
And as I told you, providing Stengers credentials was in response to you calling him mediocre and a joker etc. As I noted, while you had the right to disagree with whatever he writes, your choice of words were very inappropriate seeing as you are a layman while he is very accomplished in his field. It just so happened you unwittingly called a Nobel Laureate a joker.

The truth is that you have said one big fat nothing throughout this thread! “I don’t need examples. I don’t rely on science. I don’t need proof” etc. That amounts to zero over ten, son. You aint said nada. Probably because your argument is nada.

Listen lad, better nothing than a cacophony of meaningless noises.
Of course its nothing to you because you let your emotions and sentiments cloud your judgement (I sincerely hope that thats the real problem).
It would be nothing to you again because I'm responding to nothing.
There you have it boy.

So that is the first and most basic point in this discussion: namely that the first premise of the Cosmological Argument is nothing but a repetition of the law of cause and effect: the self same rule observable in all motion about us. If you wish to call it an assumption, then you necessarily call the law of cause and effect an assumption. You necessarily also call the laws of motion nothing but assumptions. The second premise follows naturally and holds true: it holds true even if one argues that the singularity always existed: it holds true for the simple reason that, whatever it was, the expansion called the big bang was movement. As such, it required a trigger.

Strawman alert. You make up stuff like this all through the thread and then say I have said nothing. Its like we are three people arguing here. Or possibly you are using an interpreter because I do not see how you generate these strawmen so efficiently.

That is not my position.
Thank you.

Now I am painfully struck by the fact that the atheistic scientist who derides mythical religious notions, in his desperate bid to deny the existence of a primordial causative factor, proceeds to tender the most magical and unscientific notions imaginable: movement without any trigger, expansions without any causation, voodoo and black magic of the most laughable kind: and you sit here and expect me to take these notions seriously. What do you do? You begin to cite to me the academic qualifications of the people who say these things. And by the way, yes, that is nothing but appealing to authority. I see no reason why else you would set out their academic or other qualifications within the context of this debate.

I took the liberty of bolding that line. You see no reason even when I told you the reason ? Im sorry but you must either be a mind reader or you are even less objective than I thought you to be.
I quote something does not mean I endorse it. When I say I endorse it, then I endorse it. Until I say so, it simply means I quoted it. I did so for a reason. To show you something different. Surely it has infused new life into you, unfortunately you use that energy in erecting strawnen.

No my friend, that IS NOT an appeal to authority. Until you show me where I said I endorsed Stenger because he is Stenger, then and only then will you have a chance of claiming an appeal to authority. In addition, you will need to prove that he is not an appropriate authority.
Remember, I have said (and not just on this thread alone) that I do not rely on science for my position. As much as you will like to think I quoted Stenger and Mills as an endorsement you are wrong.

Frankly, their qualifications are useless. If they peddle ridiculous notions such as these, they are dunderheaded dolts who have wasted their time being educated in the first place. YES: NA ME TALK AM.

Whatever you call them, they are vastly more qualified on the subject than you are. I hope you see the implication of that.
Makes me wonder what you know about the scientific method.
Write a science paper yourself and have it peer reviewed. Then I can listen to you too. Possibly quote you one day as well.

Now when these things are put to you, you assert that one is advancing an argument from ignorance. You fail to make the most elementary distinction between proven concepts and unproven concepts. In the notion that you advance, every single piece of knowledge in mankind’s history is nothing but arguments and statements from ignorance. Because you fail to recognize that everything we know, and will ever know, is “as far as we know”. That is so simple, I honestly don’t know how it could elude you. We can only know as far as we know. As such, the term “as far as we know” is a valid prefix to every single statement that we can make. In your rendition of things, this means that every statement that we can make is only made from ignorance. That is wrong: the statements are made from that which we know: if you know differently, dunk the proof on the table son, it’s that simple.

Na wa. This is tortuous. I mentioned that it is debatable to say "every single piece of knowledge in mankind’s history is nothing but arguments and statements from ignorance". It is your habit to make grand statements without due consideration. You need to revise your statement.
I have not and do not support that notion.

Also quote me where I say that as far as we know "means that every statement that we can make is only made from ignorance." This is yet another strawman. I believe I made it clear that the problem is in how you formulate your argument.

Now look here boy, I dont mind correcting you, but I expect to do it only once.
Pay attention !

Having said this, yes, I accept your rendition of the CA as you wrote it –

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, Whatever begins to exist has a cause
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe began to exist
therefore AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe has a cause.


Simples.

Beautiful.

Works for me!

Good.

That simply means that “As far as we know, your position is and remains wrong.”
Until and unless proven otherwise.

Argument from ignorance. A common theme here and in many "god" arguments.

What it actually means is that we can toss the CA in the cupboard until such a time as we actually "know" the premises to be true.
I thank you for conceding the point albeit unwittingly.

Curiously, you do not want to admit the "best current scientific knowledge" on "nothing". Why na ?

Just so you recognize how tedious you are being, I once advanced the simple equation 0 + 0 = 0 to an atheist on this forum. Such a simple and obviously true equation. He raked up a storm about it – screaming that that was only “as far as we know” and could be wrong elsewhere. Quaint! Now its your turn I guess.

Oh I'm aware of that thread. You've been itching to try it out havent you ?

Perhaps if I tell you that I am typing this text using my fingers on a keyboard, you will remind me that that is only as far as we know. Ride on.

If it soothes your ego to make a caricature argument, ride on.

Now just a postscript on “nothingness”. “Nothingness” is not “the simplest state of things” or some other such hogwash recalibrated in different words. Nothing is exactly what the word states: nothing at all. By very definition, it is non existent. It is thus beyond absurd to ascribe properties such as instability to “nothingness.” It’s nonsensically silly. I don’t care who wrote it or how many prizes they won. Its dirty, empty, clueless frog spin, and I will not have it.

Tragedy is, you, who wish to sit with science (whilst refusing to discuss science), are the one who offers up this pot of ludicruous voodoo whilst attempting to debunk simple commonsense, and calling such common sense “assumptions”.

Says Deep Sight, the man who has accomplished what in science now ?
My dear, all that is irrelevant to me I assure you.
You can do better. Take it up with Stenger or the Nobel Laureate himself.
You should have no difficulty showing them the error of their ways.
They have spent years in the "lab" for nothing.

Well I was going to make this post a What I am saying and What I am not saying thing, but since you have unwittingly conceded the point, I'll make it much shorter.

We started with


WHATEVER begins to exist has a cause
The Universe BEGAN to exist
The Universe HAS a cause.

Several posts later, we have a different version which you admit works for you.

The revised/extended version as accepted by you is

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, Whatever begins to exist has a cause
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe began to exist
therefore AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe has a cause.

They are different animals.

One is absolute and unconditional. It excludes every other possibility. The word "whatever" ensures this.

The other is conditional in the sense that the knowledge is said to be inconclusive presently.
The proviso "as far as we know" ensures this.

As such, in no way can the CA be the best or even a suitable argument for god. Not currently at the very least.

However there is one thing I must say. At no point in this thread have I said that the premises of the CA are false. Rather I have asked for proof of their truth and the best proof offered is an assumption.

An assumption that what happens on our limited scale applies universally.

^^^ Everything is as far as we know. We can only work with how far we know. So, since you accept that "as far as we know", those premises are correct, then you are the one who has ceded the debate> As far as we know, you are wrong. Period.

When we know something else, then YOU can come back with the voodoo, thanks.

^^^
The matter is clear whether you see it or not. You unwittingly ceded the point. In actual fact it has been clear ever since you wrote out the CA.
After constructing all kinds of strawmen, you have convinced yourself that you have made a point.
You havent.

^ ^ ^ Lolz. Convince yourself bro. You wrote out the "as far as we know" version, didnt you?

Good! So As far as we know, the CA is right and valid and your suppositions are wrong.

Wake me up when we know different.

*snorring* zzzzzzzzzzzz

[Dreaming]: Oh dear, this fellow still evades the "nothingness" which has properties such as instability. This fellow still celebrates those who say that. This fellow is yet to give an example of a single. . . yawn, this dream is boring. . . .

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ Lolz. Convince yourself bro. You wrote out the "as far as we know" version, didnt you?

Good! So As far as we know, the CA is right and valid and your suppositions are wrong.

This borders on the dishonest. Here is the relevant part.

jayriginal:

I will kindly ask you to quote me on "accepting" the law of cause and effect not once, but twice. If you cant, please bring it up no more.

I do not recall saying "as far as we know" denotes an argument from ignorance. Kindly quote that also so I may set the record straight. Indeed, the path my argument has taken is not to rubbish such provisos but to point to you that such a proviso can only mean that the information is not yet wholly conclusive. As such, there may yet be new discoveries that may completely verify the information, strengthen it, or even discard it.
If you disagree with me, you may cast your CA in the following form

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, Whatever begins to exist has a cause
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe began to exist
therefore AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe has a cause.

Im sure you dont like the look of this new CA though quite frankly that is what you are saying.

Reading through this it is clear that this is what you are saying and I put it to you. You subsequently agreed that that works for you.
Clearly then, you have ceded the debate. Because put in that form, the CA is no longer absolute. It is not the same one as you started with.
There is a clear limitation on the premises.

Wake me up when we know different.

Until we "know", keep the CA in the cupboard.

*snorring* zzzzzzzzzzzz

[Dreaming]: Oh dear, this fellow still evades the "nothingness" which has properties such as instability. This fellow still celebrates those who say that. This fellow is yet to give an example of a single. . . yawn, this dream is boring. . . .

Oh dear, this fellow is still playing make believe scientist.
Good luck with that.

^ Seems lost on you that all knowledge can only ever be "as far as we know". Enjoy.

It seems lost on you that that assertion is debatable and you are likely on the loosing side of the debate.

A word of caution for you in the future. Avoid wide generalizations unless you are absolutely sure of the veracity of that which you set forth.

You may now go back to dreaming about ancient aliens and all the other funny stuff which accord with your common observation et al.

Before you do, some more reading for you. If you like make a hash out of it again. It is taken out of a preface to a book.

Since the book's publication cosmology has moved on apace, and I have also become
aware of the need for a somewhat more extensive range of material, hence this second edition.
To summarize the differences from the first edition, there is more stuff than before,
and the stuff that was already there is now less out-of-date.

Cosmology is an interesting course to teach, as it is not like most of the other subjects
taught in undergraduate physics courses. There is no perceived wisdom, built up over a
century or more, which provides an unquestionable foundation, as in thermodynamics,
electromagnetism, and even quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Within our broadbrush
picture the details often remain rather blurred, changing as we learn more about the
Universe in which we live. Opportunities crop up during the course to discuss new results
which impact on cosmologists' views of the Universe, and for the lecturer to impose their
own prejudices on the interpretation of the ever-changing observational situation.

Andrew Liddle, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, 2d ed,(United Kingdom: Wiley, 2003)

(Liddle is a professor of astrophysics. On his site he introduces himself thus:
My research is on various aspects of cosmology and astrophysics. In particular I am interested in the origin and evolution of structure in the Universe, with special focus on models and observational constraints on the inflationary cosmology, physics of the cosmic microwave background, and the use of galaxy clusters as cosmological probes.)
http://astronomy.sussex.ac.uk/~andrewl/andrewl.html

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:

That statement is an oxymoron. What existed before the creation of time had to be eternal.

Why must it be so? Where is your evidence? When did time begin/ get created?

Because God (Father, Word and Holy Ghost) who was there at the beginning when He created the universe (matter, space and time) said so and recorded it for us for posterity.

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
God is an eternal Being and God lives in eternity. The eternal, infinite Creator God created the cosmos at the beginning and this consists of time, space and matter (energy/mass). For you to say that a created universe could have existed before the creation of time is neither logical nor good science.

God can do anything he can create things outside the realms of time if he so wishes. Are you claiming to know that the universe did NOT exist in another form before the creation of time when it was spoken into its current form?

True that God can do anything but that is not enough reason to assume what was not recorded in the Truth Book.

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
How will you know the ultimate cause of the universe since you've rejected the answer from Scripture?

I have rejected nothing - you continue to make false claims like a descendant of the Father of all liars.

I do not make false claims neither 'am I a descendant of the father of lies, our Lord Jesus Christ was accused of using the spirit of Beelzebub so your accusation is not new. I testify of what God says in the Scripture and He said that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" He did not leave it for human speculations.

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
It was eternity before the creation of the time and eternity is the life-time of the never dying God.

How do you know this? Refer to my first question - when was time created?

See the first chap in Genesis.

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
If your so called predecessor to the universe was created by God why shouldn't this fall under the third option: that the it was created?

It can, and as I referenced a number of posts earlier, it depends on when you want to start from/ your perspective.

If it can what then are we arguing about?

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
The onus is on you to provide the evidence that the universe emanated from a 'thing' which was created by God. Do you see where you've been going round in your vicious cycle? My third possibility of the cause of the universe was creation and you are here talking about a universe emanating from a 'thing' created by God,

I don't have to provide any evidence - I am not trying to prove that it DID emanate from a 'thing', only to put forward that there may be other possibilities.

Your speculation has been discarded by the first and second options.

debosky:
If I look at a bar of steel and I ask when was it created, I will be referred to when it was smelted and forged in a steel mill, not when the individual electrons and protons that make up elemental iron were created.

And that's because you are not God who is the ultimate Creator of all things. Scientists only discover what God has created when they think the thoughts of God. Albert Einstein said "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details."

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
If you have been studying your Bible you would have come across Psalm 33:6 that says "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breadth of His mouth."

Good! If the universe came from the word of the Lord, when was this word created? If it wasn't created, can we say the universe has always existed because the word has always existed with God?

You see what I mean about how far back you want to go?

You are still referring to the second possibility that the universe always existed, are you saying that the universe is the word? For you to know who the Word is you will have to read John 1:1 which says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made"

In case you are still wondering who this Word is, read Colossians 1:15-16:

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him"

You can see that the One who created all things and brought life into being is the Word of God, who became flesh in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:3-4,14).

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
The Scripture says again in Genesis 2:1 that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never to occur again. You can see here that the creation was "finished," once and for all. This is what the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states: that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. I It is "finished," just as the Bible correctly states.

I warned you to avoid exhibiting your rank ignorance of scientific theorems Matter CAN be created from energy and vice versa. Have you ever heard of E = MC2 ??

Again, this distraction did not even answer my point which is that the universe could've had a predecessor - can you explain how the verse above addresses whether the universe had a predecessor?

If you have not heard of the Continuous Creation Theory formulated by Sir Fred Hoyle which is also known as "Steady-State" it is because it has been discarded by recent discoveries that reveals that that there are no ongoing creations today, so your speculation has been blown out of the water. If the universe had a predecessor as you have postulated, where did the predecessor emanate from since you believe God forgot to tell us where it came from?

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
Which has been shown to be an illegitimate response and if you are saying that it was created by God that still comes under the 3rd possibility.

It is not illegitimate - it all depends on the perspective of the discussion.

Was the universe created or not?

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
Again, God created time at the beginning of creation, I hope you get the 3 dimensional creation of time, space and matter (energy/mass) that was created at the beginning.

When were the angels created? At the beginning of creation or before? Were they created before or after the universe was created? Biblical references please, no links or cartoons.

Since you know that angels are created beings and not eternal they were created within the creation week. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day" (Genesis 1:31).

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:16).

debosky:

OLAADEGBU:
The scientific theorems that you cling to have been shown to be discarded by the authority of the Bible never changes because its the solid foundation on which I stand.

I cling to nothing but the bible - I don't attempt to impute meanings into it that it was never intended for, neither do I attempt to say ridiculous things which are blatant lies like melanin reflections causes brown eyes just to defend my point of view.

I don't overreach myself by saying daft things like blue eyes are as a result of sin (something that the bible doesn't tell us) or the countless number of ridiculous statements you have made over the years here.

The science that you give credence to has discovered that melanin determines the colour of the eye. If the iris of the eye has a larger amount of melanin, it will be brown. The fact that this is lost on you shows that you do not only not have a lose grasp of the Bible you are equally at loss with good science.

I do not recall saying that blue eyes are a result of sin, if you do please quote where I said it so that I can see the context in which it was said. What I recall saying is that Adam and Eve had perfect DNA with no mistakes or mutations because God had said that He had made all things perfect (Genesis 1:31) as I have quoted above. Mistakes or flaws in the DNA strands began to occur after God had pronounced death on Adam and Eve where there was loss of information due to mutations and natural selection. This is why marrying close relatives was forbidden for health reasons.

debosky:
I can differentiate between trying to understand the mechanisms of HOW (science) versus the WHY provided by the bible.

To end, I close with this verse:

Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.

It would do you good to stop claiming that 'all the answers' are provided in the bible, when the bible itself says we only know in part.

The Bible gives us the answers to what was created, who created, when He created, how He created and why He created. He did not leave the answers up to human speculations unless you take human faulty ideologies over the written word of God who was an eyewitness to His creaton and what we see today testifies to what He said in His Word.

Because God (Father, Word and Holy Ghost) who was there at the beginning when He created the universe (matter, space and time) said so and recorded it for us for posterity.

You did not answer my question - when was time created? Did the bible tell you when time was created? We know when the first day started, but is time relevant only to the earth or is this time also applicable in heaven?

OLAADEGBU:
True that God can do anything but that is not enough reason to assume what was not recorded in the Truth Book.

If this is your view, why are you assuming the following:

Since you know that angels are created beings and not eternal they were created within the creation week. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day" (Genesis 1:31).

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:16).

Did the bible tell you angels were created in 'creation week' or is this your assumption? Did God tell you that the angels were not created before the earth was formed?

I have not assumed anything, I have only put forward a theory of HOW something might have happened.

You are still referring to the second possibility that the universe always existed, are you saying that the universe is the word?

No I am not - I am asking you - what was the universe created from? Was it from the Word or from what exactly? Since you want to play with words, you will get entangled by your own games. In plain English, what was the universe created from?

The Bible gives us the answers to what was created, who created, when He created, how He created and why He created. He did not leave the answers up to human speculations unless you take human faulty ideologies over the written word of God who was an eyewitness to His creaton and what we see today testifies to what He said in His Word.

Say what you will - there are many details not provided in the Word - your attempts to force things into the accounts which are not stated therein is a clear sign of hubris.

When 'time' was created is not stated in the bible - we are told that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

debosky:

You did not answer my question - when was time created? Did the bible tell you when time was created? We know when the first day started, but is time relevant only to the earth or is this time also applicable in heaven?

I did. If my answer is not enough for you then you are looking for what is not in Scripture. The Bible states in Genesis 1:1 that In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Romans 1:17 states: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . ." (Rom. 1:17-22)

Verse 20 clearly tells us that the invisible divine nature of God can be seen clearly from the creation of the world. Scientists have discovered that the cosmos consist of time, matter (mass/energy) and space, which paints the picture of the tri-une God. Elohim (The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) created the heaven and the earth (universe = space, time and matter). In Hebrew Genesis 1:1 reads: Beresheet bara Elohim, et ha-Shamayim et ha-Eretz. Bara is a verb meaning to create out of nothing. For you to assume otherwise says a lot about where you take your authority from. Even good scientists now know that the universe has a beginning but they are lost as at how this beginning came to be. They keep on formulating different big bang theories like the Steady State, Hesitation, Oscillation and Inflation Models all to no avail.

debosky:
If this is your view, why are you assuming the following:

God went as far as writing it down with His own hands and yet folks would rather suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God said: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11).

debosky:
Did the bible tell you angels were created in 'creation week' or is this your assumption? Did God tell you that the angels were not created before the earth was formed?

If you know otherwise please tell us.

debosky:
I have not assumed anything, I have only put forward a theory of HOW something might have happened.

All those "theories" are assumptions, conjectures and speculations which have all been scientifically disproved.

debosky:
No I am not - I am asking you - what was the universe created from? Was it from the Word or from what exactly? Since you want to play with words, you will get entangled by your own games. In plain English, what was the universe created from?

The Hebrew word Bara means to create out of nothing and only God can do this.

debosky:
Say what you will - there are many details not provided in the Word - your attempts to force things into the accounts which are not stated therein is a clear sign of hubris.

And you think your assumptions will fill in the gaps?

debosky:
When 'time' was created is not stated in the bible - we are told that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

What is the beginning?

The Trinity In Creation

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:1–3)

These incomparable words open God’s written revelation to man, telling us how our Time/Space/Matter universe came to exist. No other religious writings, ancient or modern, do this. All others begin with the assumption of an eternal, self-existing universe. The truth is, however, that the eternal, self-existing, transcendent, omnipotent Triune God simply called the universe into being by His word. "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made. . . . For He spake, and it was done" (Psalm 33:6,9).

The Hebrew for "God" is the uni-plural Elohim, a plural noun (as noted by the “im” ending), yet normally represented by a singular pronoun "He." This is the first foreshadowing of the marvelous doctrine of the Trinity—only one Creator God, yet functioning as three divine Persons. It is significant that His created universe is actually a tri-universe, with each of its distinct components ("beginning" = time; "heaven" = space; "earth" = matter) comprising and pervading the whole universe. Just as the Father is the source and background of all being, so space is the background of all that happens in the physical universe. Just as the Son manifests and speaks for the Father, so matter manifests and functions in space. Just as the Spirit interpretes and energises the Son and the Father in human experience, so space and matter are interpreted and experienced in phenomena operating in time.

The Father planned the work of creation, the Son did the work ("all things were made by Him"—John 1:3), and the Spirit energised it ("the Spirit of God moved"). The Triune God created and now sustains our tri-universe! HMM

For more . . . .

[quote author=OLAADEGBU]

I did. If my answer is not enough for you then you are looking for what is not in Scripture.

Maybe you're beginning to get it - if you cannot give me an explicit answer as in when time was created from the scripture, it shouldn't be a problem for you to say I DON'T KNOW. But I know your haughtiness and arrogance will not permit you to make such a simple admission.

[quote]Bara is a verb meaning to create out of nothing.

What is the definition of this 'nothing'? Does it mean nothing that existed previously or nothing physical?

For you to assume otherwise says a lot about where you take your authority from.

Again will you stop with the lies? I have not assumed anything - I asked you a question you are UNABLE to answer and you resort to lies again? If you cannot tell me when time was created, then don't claim I am assuming anything when I haven't.

God went as far as writing it down with His own hands and yet folks would rather suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God said: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11).

Is the heaven, earth and the sea the same as creation of time? Don't try to twist yourself into knots - you have failed to answer my question with your ridiculous lies.

If you know otherwise please tell us.

Answer the question - did the bible tell you that angels were created in creation week or is this your assumption? Why can't you answer a direct question?

And you think your assumptions will fill in the gaps?

I don't need to fill the gaps - I can theorise to my heart's content, knowing I will fully know in heaven. You on the other hand are claiming in your ignorance to know in full when the bible says we know in part. Again I ask - where in the bible are you told when angels were created or is this your own assumption? Yes or no?

What is the beginning?

The beginning as described in Genesis of the heavens and the earth - the physical universe - there is no mention of the creation of angels, principalities, powers 'in the beginning'.

[size=14pt]Underground telescope could peer beyond the Big Bang [/size]

A telescope buried up to half a mile underground could give scientists their first glimpse of the dawn of the universe.

The ambitious new device is designed to detect gravitational waves – an elusive phenomena created by some of the most violent events in the universe such as black holes, neutron stars and the Big Bang.

Although they have never been directly detected, these waves of gravity are thought to echo through the universe like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond and they could provide scientists with a new way of mapping the sky.

The telescope, which is likely to cost between £500 million and £1 billion to build, will be built inside a network of tunnels 12 miles long and buried up to half a mile underground to dampen any interference from vibrations on the surface.

The project is expected to rival the Large Hadron Collider, the 17 mile particle smasher on the French Swiss Border that was switched on in 2008, in its scale and ambition.

Physicists claim the telescope will give them the first chance to see a black hole, which until now have only been detected indirectly because of the stars and debris orbiting them, and see into the centre of powerful stars known as neutron stars.

The telescope, called the Einstein Telescope, could also reveal for the first time whether there were universes in existence before our own by looking for the echoes of previous Big Bangs similar to the one that created our own universe 13.7 billion years ago.

Highly precise lasers will be beamed along two six mile long vacuum chambers to detect minute changes in the distance between targets at either end caused by gravitational waves passing through the Earth.

Professor B S Sathyaprakash, an astrophysicist at Cardiff University and chair of the science working party for the Einstein Telescope, said: "There is huge potential to see the universe in a completely new way with gravitational waves.

"They are very weak by the time they reach the Earth, but with a sensitive detector we will be able to get direct evidence for black holes, learn more about how the universe is expanding and pick up some of the gravitational waves from the big bang.

"If we are really lucky we get some signals from before the big bang that might help explain what existed before our own universe and whether we are living in just one of a continuous cycle of big bangs and rapid expansions."

Scientists behind the project, which is being led by the European Gravitational Observatory, are due to hold a meeting in Pisa, Italy next month to outline their plans for the new telescope.

They are proposing to build the telescope in one of 14 candidate sites that are currently undergoing extensive seismic testing to ensure disturbances deep inside the earth's crust will not interfere with the measurement.

The sites include abandoned mines in Poland, Hungary, Romania, France, Italy and Germany but they could also build new tunnels to house the telescope, which will consist two "arms" that are each six miles long.

At the end of each arm will be mirrored targets suspended on the end of long pendulums that will be used to reflect a laser beam.

The lasers will be fired through along the six mile arms in a close to perfect vacuum and at temperatures below -238 degrees F to reduce the external changes that could interfere with signals from gravitational waves.

Gravitational waves are created by objects like black holes moving through space and time, which creates ripples that move out at the speed of light, rather like those that occur when a stone is thrown into a pond.

They were first predicted by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity.

When these waves interact with particles, such as those that make up the mirrored targets in the telescope, they cause them to stretch and shrink.

Differences in the amount of stretching and shrinking in each arm of the Einstein Telescope can then be used, with the help of computers, to build up a picture of what created the gravitational wave and pinpoint its source.

Astronomers currently rely on visible light, radio waves and X-rays coming from distant objects for their view of the universe, but they are limited by how far these can penetrate through space.

Gravitational waves can cover far greater distances and echoes from the moment of the Big Bang, when the universe burst into being, are thought to still exist.

There are a number of smaller experiments that are nearing completion that are expected to detect gravitational waves for the first time.

Another project to use three spacecraft flying in formation to detect gravitational waves suffered a blow this month when Nasa said it may not be able to fund its part of the joint project with the European Space Agency.

Professor Alberto Vecchio, an expert on gravitational waves at Birmingham University who is among those leading the search to find the first gravitational waves, said: "Gravitational waves are essentially a different kind of broadcast channel coming from objects in space and allow us to build an entirely new class of telescope.

"It should allow us to see black holes, as they are among the strongest sources of gravitational waves and we will also be able to see neutron stars just moments before they collapse.

"Previous attempts to detect gravitational waves on the surface have produced difficulties because clouds or aircraft passing overhead have produced readings. Going underground where it is very quiet means we can build a very sensitive instrument."

SOURCE

^^^

That is Jay's 'evidence' supporting his theory of an endless series of expansions and contractions.

Not something I agree with, although the experiment will shed light on little understood aspects of the universe.

Debosky, its actually not my evidence and I most certainly do not have a theory.

All it does is show that scientists are not certain about the origin of the Universe. This is a point I've been trying to get across.

However the Universe is, is how it is.

jayriginal:
However the Universe is, is how it is.

Profound

debosky: That is Jay's 'evidence' supporting his theory of an endless series of expansions and contractions.

Not something I agree with, although the experiment will shed light on little understood aspects of the universe.

Actually the idea of successive expansions and contractions is interesting even if unproven.

For me, it does not obviate the requirement for a beginning of such a series for the simple reason that matter being mutable and tangible, cannot be self-existent and thus not eternal in the past.