CatfishBilly:

This quote is from Vilenkin
If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

I don't see how this disproves what I said. Time before the big bang was inconsequential. The laws of physics and nature more or less degenerates, so, no one could say with absolute certainty what happened, theists and theologians just took the easy way out and said God.

Ok, fair enough.
What has been observed of the universe that suggests that an external being is "supporting" its survival?

CoolUsername:


Exactly, there is no argument for God that is not self-refuting or doesn't contain a non-sequitur. Kingebukasblog has brought up many such arguments and none of them have stood up to scrutiny.

CoolUsername:

God comes from the notion that non-existence is the default of reality.

What if the universe in some form has always existed?

KingEbukasBlog:


Atheism is primitive . Do you know atheism began 500 years before Christianity and 1,200 years before Islam ?

cc : spacetacular

CoolUsername:


Exactly, there is no argument for God that is not self-refuting or doesn't contain a non-sequitur. Kingebukasblog has brought up many such arguments and none of them have stood up to scrutiny.

johnydon22:


If nonexistence is a default state then God himself would also have to be nonexistent at some point. So if anything at all can exist then nonexistence cannot be assumed to be the default state.

spacetacular:


And Jackfizzle thinks atheism is modern

He never disappoints me.

KingEbukasBlog:




Many atheists don't even know the history of atheism . Atheists then were not even taken seriously because there claims were suffused with ignorance . The ancient Charvaka atheist materialist school claimed that the universe is made up water , earth , fire and air . I think they were the ones that first brought up the idea of an eternal universe because they claimed that the universe not God is eternal and an eternal universe precludes God's existence .

Thank God modern science has rubbished those claims with surfeit evidence that the universe indeed had a beginning .

KingEbukasBlog:



No no my brothers . Nothing or non existence there means material . Immaterial is seen as nothing or non existent from the materialist point of view .

God is an immaterial being .

KingEbukasBlog:


The video link I posted to you explains this perfectly .

Therefore the universe came from nothing ?

See my latest response to Johnydon22

CatfishBilly:

Guth in that same video also said that there could be a pre history to the Origin of the universe, but the universe as we know it definitely had a beginning.

There are other models that don't agree with Vilenkin's theorem example, eternal inflation.

Nobody knows, theologists and theists are saying I don't know, therefore God.

Do you mean John Lennox?
All I see there is, I don't know, so it has to be God, it must be God. Ain't that argument from incredulity?
That's a summary of his position.

johnydon22:
lol I wish you'd stop making such confident remarks on a naive footing



The scientific answer to that is the universe would be a totally self contained system unneeding of external nudges.

I want so badly to teach you these things but I can't do that if you wouldn't be willing to listen with humiloty and not clawing to argue.


No they wouldn't, this is physics sir not as simple as you think.

its always about winning to you not about what is right.

That is always the problem, how can you ever grow with that?

spacetacular:


Atheism began as a school of speculative thinking with a lot of fantasy and till date has not deviated from its origin.

I read Jackfizzle make a comment directed at me somewhere that he was arguing based on SCIENCE FICTION and not Science. It got me tied up in knots with laughter.

KingEbukasBlog:


He said that because he thought the universe created itself because of gravity and that since it created itself , it sustains itself . Mathematician and Scientist John Lennox handled that properly , he said :

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

The summary simply is : There is no such thing as self contained , self sufficient universe .

Ermacc:
You are also making confident remarks on the eternity of the universe based on mere speculations. If you have really followed the hawkins lectures, you would have gone across the backlash it has received. Big bang isn't a fact and pre big bang will only be laughable.

johnydon22:


But still something that exists isn't it?

chemystery:
But wait! What else are we discussing in religion or in religious text/doctrines if not god?

Or are there atheist that discuss about champions league in religion?

spacetacular:



God does not simply exist! God is the cause of existence. In a nutshell, GOD IS!

God is the one who was before existence began as we know it.

We talk about existence from the human materialistic nature but the intangibility of the spiritual does not talk about existence as we know it. It's like trying to say you know the origin of the wind.

You could say the wind is caused by the sun heating the earth and causing air to rise and then the earth's rotation causing the wind to move anticlockwise or Coriolis effect but can there be wind without air?

Air is made up of various gases but without the cause of these gases can we have air? If you keep following this backwards you would surely know that PURPOSE was behind all things.

Have you bothered to find out what the earth would be like if there was absolutely no wind? I suggest you look into this and then tell me about your no intelligence behind creation theory.

hopefulLandlord:
Our British surgeon is too "intelligent" to notice John is ignoring her posts, "intelligence" does have its downside

spacetacular:


You are clearly extremely myopic not to see that everyone is ignoring yours. Now it's time to throw in distracting memes just to be noticed.

hopefulLandlord:
Our British surgeon is too "intelligent" to notice John is ignoring her posts, "intelligence" does have its downside

KingEbukasBlog:


There could be ? I hope you know that such hope is both chimerical and delusional . You conducted a research and your research tells you that the universe has a beginning but you just had to hope that somewhere just somewhere there could be another universe before this one ?

With no evidence to support them , so we can dismiss them right ?

We know , only the atheists speculate and fantasize

No , laws of physics do not create anything - it is not speculation , it is a fact .

spacetacular:



oh and by the way John is in a fix. So he chooses to ignore those things that would further put him in a fix. When reality collides with Atheistic fantasy . You know the rest.

CatfishBilly:

What part of the universe could have been eternal don't you understand?


The age of the universe was calculated from the rate of its expansion. Carbon dating was used for earth. Stop mixing them up.

KingEbukasBlog:


The Multiverse theory especially came from science fiction . It was science fiction for mere entertainment before atheist scientists started considering such as a new way to explain away God . There is no evidence to support it and a multiverse still does not preclude the existence of God .

felixomor:


Please go and learn
Earth is part of this universe.
And even if you are correct, then its components which would have also been components of the previous universe will have no age.

The sun, earth, stars all have carbon as part of it.
If you say the universe is eternal, you are only spoiling your logic.
Because the estimated ages of these bodies will all be wrong.

You will end up running around a circle

johnydon22:
lol I wish you'd stop making such confident remarks on a naive footing



The scientific answer to that is the universe would be a totally self contained system unneeding of external nudges.

I want so badly to teach you these things but I can't do that if you wouldn't be willing to listen with humiloty and not clawing to argue.


No they wouldn't, this is physics sir not as simple as you think.

its always about winning to you not about what is right.

That is always the problem, how can you ever grow with that?

johnydon22:


I am quite certain that the possibilities of other galaxies was once a subject of science fiction.

Rev fr geodano Bruno was burnt at the stake for daring to assume there may be countless number of worlds some inhabited.

The Multiverse theory is just as much inclusion of external influence as God, no less observationally feasible as God.

So as I have maintained the lesson is clear: these are of no relevance within our space/time (universe)

johnydon22:


So if the universe is 15billion years we could then say that everything in the universe is 15billion years going by this logic, Yes?

felixomor:


Please go and learn
Earth is part of this universe.
And even if you are correct, then its components which would have also been components of the previous universe will have no age.

The sun, earth, stars all have carbon as part of it.
If you say the universe is eternal, you are only spoiling your logic.
Because the estimated ages of these bodies will all be wrong.

You will end up running around a circle

CatfishBilly:

So, the earth, sun and stars all formed immediately the big bang happened, abi? Interesting!

The components of the "previous universe" can't be tested because carbon dating wasn't done, the age of the present observable universe was calculated from its rate of expansion, how is that difficult to understand?