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?

So when did they form? And why did they Individually DECIDE to form in such a manner as would give us just the right distance from each other and the right gravitational pull plus who determined their sizes which influence the strength of their gravitational pull?

How was it that the Sun DECIDED to set itself at just the right position needed for sustaining life here on earth?

I wish to be educated.

felixomor:


If it cant be tested,
Then stop assuming.

It's not assumption Mr Felix it's FANTASY.

hopefulLandlord:
This new discussion on origin of the universe should've been on another thread

the topic of the main thread is very dumb and senseless as atheists can talk about religion as they reject it too, doesn't matter if there are some atheists that accept some form of religion, a non religious atheist should be able to criticise a "religious" one and vice versa

The topic wasn't dumb. Ofcourse anyone can discuss anything. This thread was to show how it "could" be illogical to argue against God's existence on the grounds of religion skeptism. In my opinion, atheists don't like topics were the spotlight is on them. They tend to evade it, twist it and strive to control the tempo. This was suppose to be an educative thread.

felixomor:


Bros, everything you say is your wishes.
Not scientific facts.
The age of the universe is well documented.

So you agree with me that the Big bang theory is correct?

Please cite one credible reference for eternal universe.
Its very obvious you have no idea what the laws of thermodynamics states.
That is why you are attributing a kind of consciousness to the universe by calling it a self sustaining system.

Systems do not have to be conscious to be self sustaining, I am pretty sure stars aren't conscious.

Anyway, I am waiting for you to cite credible documents for eternal Universe.

These profound and lovely images are, I like to imagine, a kind of premonition of modern astronomical ideas.* Very likely, the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, but it is by no means clear that it will continue to expand forever. The expansion may gradually slow, stop and reverse itself. If there is less than a certain critical amount of matter in the universe, the gravitation of the receding galaxies will be insufficient to stop the expansion, and the universe will run away forever. But if there is more matter than we can see - hidden away in black holes, say, or in hot but invisible gas between the galaxies - then the universe will hold together gravitationally and partake of a very Indian succession of cycles, expansion followed by contraction, universe upon universe, Cosmos without end. If we live in such an oscillating universe, then the Big Bang is not the creation of the Cosmos but merely the end of the previous cycle, the destruction of the last incarnation of the Cosmos.

The cosmos By Carl Sagan

I wonder how the point eludes everyone here, its actually very simple.

Our cosmology is yet to determine the actually state of the universe, we cannot conclusively state whether it is eternal or not - these are all possible results of the big bang cosmological mode.

Ermacc:
The topic wasn't dumb. Ofcourse anyone can discuss anything. This thread was to show how it "could" be illogical to argue against God's existence on the grounds of religion skeptism. In my opinion, atheists don't like topics were the spotlight is on them. They tend to evade it, twist it and strive to control the tempo. This was suppose to be an educative thread.

educative thread? okay

spacetacular:


Erwin Schrodinger originated the multiverse theory and guess what he was and why he theorised it.

You reply posts without even knowing the underlying point it addresses, you are just trying to argue.

felixomor:


If it cant be tested,
Then stop assuming.
You are only desperate to replace "God", or "first cause" hence your "previous universe" assumptions

God can be tested i guess?

felixomor:

If 15 billion is correct
Then Yes at the level of the core constituting elements.

So everything should be the same age then?

KingEbukasBlog do you also agree with this before I write my reply?

johnydon22:
So you agree with me that the Big bang theory is correct?




Systems do not have to be conscious to be self sustaining, I am pretty sure stars aren't conscious.



These profound and lovely images are, I like to imagine, a kind of premonition of modern astronomical ideas.* Very likely, the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, but it is by no means clear that it will continue to expand forever. The expansion may gradually slow, stop and reverse itself. If there is less than a certain critical amount of matter in the universe, the gravitation of the receding galaxies will be insufficient to stop the expansion, and the universe will run away forever. But if there is more matter than we can see - hidden away in black holes, say, or in hot but invisible gas between the galaxies - then the universe will hold together gravitationally and partake of a very Indian succession of cycles, expansion followed by contraction, universe upon universe, Cosmos without end. If we live in such an oscillating universe, then the Big Bang is not the creation of the Cosmos but merely the end of the previous cycle, the destruction of the last incarnation of the Cosmos.

The cosmos By Carl Sagan

I wonder how the point eludes everyone here, its actually very simple.

Our cosmology is yet to determine the actually state of the universe, we cannot conclusively state whether it is eternal or not - these are all possible results of the big bang cosmological mode.

But you have been arguing with certainty all along. Why this last comment now?

spacetacular:
[/b]

But you have been arguing with certainty all along. Why this last comment now?

Now it is obvious you have not being reading any of my posts here before commenting on them. Jesus Christ!!!

Please refer to all my posts on this thread, read them again and also to the discussion with KingEbukasBlog who I am willing to hope might correct your wrong representations of my argument.

Please I advice you read posts and understand them before hoping to jump to reply, such excitements are unneeded.

This has being my argument from the very first time the argument for the age of the universe was raised, maybe if you paid keen attention (not just wanting to reply) you would have noticed.

This is exactly why I ignore your posts, its always consonant in terms of reconciliation with the posts you hope to reply.

johnydon22:


So everything should be the same age then?

KingEbukasBlog do you also agree with this before I write my reply?

No, everything wont be the same age.
That is why I said, at the level of the core elements
That is where everything will remain at the same age.
Because elements will only change from one form to another.
The age of their forms will differ
The core will remain same

johnydon22:


You reply posts without even knowing the underlying point it addresses, you are just trying to argue.

Who was Erwin Schrodinger? An atheist

Why did he theorise the multiverse? He wanted something to replace God and disprove the origin of the Universe from an eternal being.

Why do you enjoy dodging things that put you in a quagmire? Was the multiverse theory not a produce of fantasy? Is fantasy scientific fact or fiction?

This same science fiction of the multiverse theory was used by Jackfizzle to argue against God as if it was a scientific fact which he first claimed to hold dear.

Do you see why you should not dodge it? Correct your fellow atheists and appeal to them to stop dwelling on fiction when presenting arguments. It is laughable!

felixomor:


No, everything wont be the same age.
That is why I said, at the level of the core elements
That is where everything will remain at the same age.
Because elements will only change from one form to another.
The age of their forms will differ
The core will remain same

Core elements would be?

johnydon22:


God can be tested i guess?

Of course.

spacetacular:


Who was Erwin Schrodinger? An atheist

Why did he theorise the multiverse? He wanted something to replace God and disprove the origin of the Universe from an eternal being.

Why do you enjoy dodging things that put you in a quagmire? Was the multiverse theory not a produce of fantasy? Is fantasy scientific fact or fiction?

This same science fiction of the multiverse theory was used by Jackfizzle to argue against God as if it was a scientific fact which he first claimed to hold dear.

Do you see why you should not dodge it? Correct your fellow atheists and appeal to them to stop dwelling on fiction when presenting arguments. It is laughable!

Oh God!!!

Ok ok please I have heard you. Thank you for you wonderful contributions

johnydon22:


Core elements would be?

Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen etc

felixomor:

Of course.

LOL.

johnydon22:


Now it is obvious you have not being reading any of my posts here before commenting on them. Jesus Christ!!!

Please refer to all my posts on this thread, read them again and also to the discussion with KingEbukasBlog who I am willing to hope might correct your wrong representations of my argument.

Please I advice you read posts and understand them before hoping to jump to reply, such excitements are unneeded.

This has being my argument from the very first time the argument for the age of the universe was raised, maybe if you paid keen attention (not just wanting to reply) you would have noticed.

This is exactly why I ignore your posts, its always consonant in terms of reconciliation with the posts you hope to reply.

You are loosing track of the number of conflating positions you have taken. Even Ermacc pointed the same thing out to you.

felixomor:

Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen etc

Hydrogen and Helium more like it brother. Carbon and Oxygen are second generational, they are starborn.

johnydon22:


I don't suppose you have somehow managed to find a unified theory that brings Quantum mechanics and relativity together?

Because if you haven't, scientific cosmology have not arrived at a conclusive answer on the universe having a beginning or an end, The big bang cosmological model does not preclude an eternal universe.

Perhaps you'd want me to clear you up on that?

I am always happy to teach the tiny science i know especially astronomical physics and cosmology

Feliximor this is my first reply to you about the argument for cosmological beginning right?

Please try and correct the over excited spacetacular to stop misrepresenting arguments due to her over excitments and lack of assimilating presented points.

spacetacular:


You are loosing track of the number of conflating positions you have taken. Even Ermacc pointed the same thing out to you.

Let me take you up on this now, I will like everyone to watch.

Coolusername, hopefullandlord, KingEbukasBlog. I have been trying to avoid this as much as possible now let me finish this in front of you all once and for all.

Now I'd like you to present a post of mine where I made an absolute assertion of the universe being either eternal or not eternal.

Its no longer funny, I will be waiting for you to show us that post

spacetacular:


So when did they form? And why did they Individually DECIDE to form in such a manner as would give us just the right distance from each other and the right gravitational pull plus who determined their sizes which influence the strength of their gravitational pull?

How was it that the Sun DECIDED to set itself at just the right position needed for sustaining life here on earth?

I wish to be educated.

The age of the sun and the earth is public knowledge, go and find those out yourself.

Life evolved on Earth because earth has the right composition and constituents to make that possible, that doesn't preclude the fact that there could be other forms of life in other planets, so your fine tuning argument doesn't fly.
I'm done replying your red herring.
The argument is origin of the universe. If you want to discuss something else, open another thread.

CatfishBilly:
You seem to have ignored the "as we know it part" of his statement. His position is that the present observable universe as we know it has a beginning, but, it is plausible that it existed in another form being the pre history of the present observable universe. I don't see what's delusional about that position

Just like Felixomor told you , if it cannot be tested , then what's the purpose of assuming ? Its funny that your reasoning on God does not extend to your fantasies and speculations

There's evidence. Aguirre A and Gratton S (2002). Steady-state eternal inflation;

The eternal universe models including Aguirre's and Sean Carrol's don't work according to my research . Lawrence Krass and Dr Craig discussed that in their debate .

Please since when did speculations become evidence ? They simply reversed what Borde , Guth and Vilenkin did

You know this how? Through philosophy and theology? Hours of painstaking scientific work?

Theists have been at the helm of scientific progress . So what are you saying ? Atheism on the other hand started with fantasies and imaginations and atheists try to use science to prove their imaginations and fantasies - this is basically what is going onwith atheist cosmologists.

Nobody said that the laws of physics created anything. I didn't.

Lennox doesn't know, it's a classic argument from incredulity. Ask him how it happened all you'll hear is intense mental gymnastics.

Hawking did , he claimed that the universe created itself because there is a law such as gravity .

CatfishBilly:

The age of the sun and the earth is public knowledge, go and find those out yourself.

Life evolved on Earth because earth has the right composition and constituents to make that possible, that doesn't preclude the fact that there could be other forms of life in other planets, so your fine tuning argument doesn't fly.
I'm done replying your red herring.
The argument is origin of the universe. If you want to discuss something else, open another thread.

What caused or gave rise to the first living cell on planet earth?

CatfishBilly:

The age of the sun and the earth is public knowledge, go and find those out yourself.

Life evolved on Earth because earth has the right composition and constituents to make that possible, that doesn't preclude the fact that there could be other forms of life in other planets, so your fine tuning argument doesn't fly.
I'm done replying your red herring.
The argument is origin of the universe. If you want to discuss something else, open another thread.

Still fantasy! The earth had just the right composition? WHY? why was this so? Why Was This composition JUST RIGHT?

again you make another fantasy Laden comment by saying THERE COULD BE OTHER LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS and used this assumption or fantasy to arrive at the conclusion that my fine tuning theory does not fly. You used the word COULD which is an assumption yet you drew a conclusion from it.

Johnydon22, the comment by catfishbilly proves my point.

Fantasy is science fiction and not fact. Perhaps they will listen to you when you tell them.

spacetacular:


Still fantasy! The earth had just the right composition? WHY? why was this so? Why Was This composition JUST RIGHT?

again you make another fantasy Laden comment by saying THERE COULD BE OTHER LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS and used this assumption or fantasy to arrive at the conclusion that my fine tuning theory does not fly.

Johnydon22, the comment by catfishbilly proves my point.

Fantasy is science fiction and not fact. Perhaps they will listen to you when you tell them.

Please stop mentioning me every opportunity you get, take people up on their assertions and argue.

The way to argue is, if you negate a postulation then you provide reasons.

I see no reason why I am needed here unless you want me to discuss with you on the arguments of fine-tuning.

johnydon22:


Anybody can employ religious skepticism, so why can't the atheists also do same?

Or being atheists makes them not qualified to also employ religious skepticism or have opinions about matters of public concern like religion?

Atheist or not, people are free to talk or discuss religion so what exactly is the point here?

Exactly this. I did not realise atheism and religious skepticism are exclusively separate. Even theists criticise other religions. The fact that there are religious atheists is irrelevant, there are irreligious atheists too and secular humanist atheists who criticise different religions for their own reasons as is their right. I would say it's mainly because religions such as Christianity and Islam are based on divine revelation which majority of atheists do not believe in. Honestly I don't get what your point was meant to be here kingebuka.

johnydon22:


Let me take you up on this now, I will like everyone to watch.

Coolusername, hopefullandlord, KingEbukasBlog. I have been trying to avoid this as much as possible now let me finish this in front of you all once and for all.

Now I'd like you to present a post of mine where I made an absolute assertion of the universe being either eternal or not eternal.

Its no longer funny, I will be waiting for you to show us that post

You should be able to locate your comments yourself. Why were you arguing with Mr king whose stand was a finite universe while you stood for an infinite one using Hawkings?

When he pointed out your error you simply said "it wasn't as simple as he thought".

Your comments are right here.

KingEbukasBlog:

Just like Felixomor told you , if it cannot be tested ,

it can be falsified actually, the postulation of a cosmos of infinite circle can be calculated by determining the distribution of matter in the universe, if the present matter passes a certain critical state then it could be calculated whether the universe would stop expanding and contract.

So just as a good theory, it has every opportunity to either be falsified or supported by observations and mathematical deductions.

then what's the purpose of assuming ? Its funny that your reasoning on God does not extend to your fantasies and speculations

Can God be tested scientifically?

johnydon22:


Please stop mentioning me every opportunity you get, take people up on their assertions and argue.

The way to argue is, if you negate a postulation then you provide reasons.

I see no reason why I am needed here unless you want me to discuss with you on the arguments of fine-tuning.

I need you to speak the truth. Being one of a kind with catfishbilly does not mean you have to brush aside his ridiculous assertions but when I make same you latch unto them.

He makes and has made some rather fantasy riddled claims and you suddenly could not read.

spacetacular:


You should be able to locate your comments yourself. Why were you arguing with Mr king whose stand was a finite universe while you stood for an infinite one using Hawkings?

When he pointed out your error you simply said "it wasn't as simple as he thought".

Your comments are right here.

You are yet to show the post, please KingEbukasBlog help me correct this, I am tired of replying this outright misrepresentation due to lack of attentiveness

Ermacc:
The topic wasn't dumb. Ofcourse anyone can discuss anything. This thread was to show how it "could" be illogical to argue against God's existence on the grounds of religion skeptism. In my opinion, atheists don't like topics were the spotlight is on them. They tend to evade it, twist it and strive to control the tempo. This was suppose to be an educative thread.

Thank you my brother !!

You dont argue against God's existence by being skeptical of religion - that has been the point oo .