butterflylion:


You have joined the league of those who use pseudoscience as logical arguments to back actual science ba? I thought you were purely a scientific mind? Can pseudoscience be tested scientifically and evidence found which supports it? You are supposed to be the atheist grand medical guru o. So how did your desperation to defend a no God assumption land your guru head in pseudoscience? Pure science don finish?

Multiverse is a hypothesis! I sure say you sabi what a hypothesis means.

So 2 models published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that even your precious Vilenkin's tried to discredit now counts as Pseudoscience?
Please, tell me, when did science journals start publishing Pseudoscience?

KingEbukasBlog:


Argument from incredulity . Because you don't see how God could work in that scenario does not automatically render God superfluous .

I don't think you understand how logical arguments work . Well , no atheist does .

Lol, you present an argument from incredulity proof, I counter with my own, I don't see how that's a problem.

And you have the nerve to say I don't understand how logical arguments work?

Whether its 1 or 2 or 100 , no evidence to support them . You can cry all you want .

Imaginary eternal universe

Keep conjuring up fantasy in your mind to comfort yourself

You and your mentor WLC should go and cry to the scientific communities that published it, don't come and cry to me since you have no idea how these things work.

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm not trolling



Lol . Since there is no evidence for an eternal universe , the corollary is that there is no evidence for creatio ex materia . Its common sense

I said there's no evidence for creatio ex materia, not no evidence for Eternal universe.
I wonder how you came up with the corollary.
An eternal universe can be independent of god, I don't know why you want to force god into this scenario, god doesn't work in this scenario.

Its a model like you said . Models are not evidence . There are a thousand and one models for an eternal universe with all the crinkum-crankum known to pseudo-science but there is no evidence to support them .

Sorry you hear

Sure they were all published in scientific journals that are peer reviewed despite them being pseudoscience.
Your desperation is glaring.

I wonder how you got your thousand and one number, I'm only aware of 2.

KingEbukasBlog:


Where is the evidence that supports Aguirre's model ? Do you know what evidence is ?

The model is not the evidence oo

Now you're trolling.

At least we've been able to establish one thing. You have no evidence whatsoever for your Creatio ex materia bullshit.

Read Aguirre A and Gratton S (2002). Steady-state eternal inflation.
It contains all your answers.

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no imaginary eternal universe ,no evidence to support it, it is fantasy . So what proof should I bring ?

Aguirre's model in 2002 supports it.
I've told you, if there's a rebuttal to a scientific paper, it is another scientific paper, not a backhand comment by a rival.
If you're so sure that no eternal model of the universe is plausible, where are the papers supporting it?
This is science, not theology or philosophy.

KingEbukasBlog:



Abstract objects are uncreated but it does not mean God does not exist .

If the universe coexists with God from past infinitude , then God can end the existence of the universe as a way of expressing Its freedom of will

But there is no reason to assume there is an eternal universe , what if there are so many other universes or realities? Are they all eternal too or just this universe?

Here we go again with the Creatio ex materia theory again.
I've asked you for your proof of this and all you could come up with was an argument from incredulity by John Lennox

KingEbukasBlog:


An atheist is free to be anything he wants to be . But pay attention to the topic bro , it says : "Its stupid for Atheists to discuss religion , they should discuss God" . Clear as crystal bro .

Atheists can discuss revealed theology when talking about religion.

Atheists can discuss natural theology when discussing with Deists.

Theology basically means The study of God, so atheists can discuss god when discussing religion too, it's just which characteristics of god thats being discussed.

Spacetacular, I'm back.
The person reporting my posts is a real asshole though.

ExInferis:


Nairaland runs on a single 500Gb Western Digital hard disk Seun bought second hand.

That's the reason behind all the crashes, Error 502s, plain design, and the restrictions of 4mb for pictures and 250Kb for other filetypes.

Shame he needs an army of mods to manage one measly hard disk.

Burn!!!!!

spacetacular:


are you agnostic?

I'm a spirit baptized, tongue speaking, devil defeating, blessed child of the kingdom. Purchased with the blood of the lamb.

KingEbukasBlog can't an atheist also be a religious skeptic?

KingEbukasBlog:


Its very easily refutable, we have digressed away from the topic though .

I don't see why this is causing an argument.
Someone can be an atheist and a religious skeptic. They are not mutually exclusive.
I am an atheist and a religious skeptic, so I can discuss religion as I damn see fit.

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm yet to see any atheist refute my position on this thread

What has Johny been doing since?
You're yet to refute his last post.

johnydon22:
Oh God!!!

KingEbukasBlog:


So you didn't see Vilenkin's comment on it ?

Vilenkin's comment, not a paper, since when did scientific models start getting rejected by offhand comments and not papers?

Scientists have already rejected the theory , there is no evidence to support the theory , it simply does not work - no eternal universe model has ever worked . What is there to refute ?

You're getting it wrong, this statement started when I said nobody knows the origin of the universe, theists said therefore it's god and you backed that up that theists have been in the forefront of sciences, so I asked for you to provide papers written by these theist scientists that it was god.

Let people speak for themselves , when did you become their mouthpiece . Your comfort zone is uncertainty , speculations and fantasies and you'll do anything to pull anyone into it .

So, what's the right way? Say that it was god when you have no evidence? Or can't even explain how the god supposedly did it?

spacetacular:


I do not think you quite understand yourself.

Are you refuting my position just for the fun of it based on the fact that I had that position and naturally as an atheist since my position speaks for creation and an eternal being you just had the urge to use anything to refute it or you actually want to sound sensible?

Either way you simply refuted my claim using an assumption be it deliberate or for fun. Why do this?

You hold the belief that my claims of God are mere assumptions which is why you argue God daily but here you are making same assumptions and trying to dig up reasons why you made them?

Wow! Just wow!

Okay.

spacetacular:



My question was a simple one. Why would you use an assumption to rubbish a claim? Is that how the science you know works?

The scientists who think this is plausible have they shown you proof or further assumptions? Why build your entire life and argument around an assumption?

Jesus Christ.
What part of "My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibility of extraterrestrial life" don't you understand?

KingEbukasBlog:

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



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

They didn't work according to your research or because it didn't agree with your position?
I'm yet to see a scientific paper that refutes Aguirre's model, if you have one, kindly post it here. WLC isn't a theoretical physicist.

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.

So, provide papers by the theist scientific community that presented irrefutable evidence that it was god.

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

Take it up with Hawking.
Hawking doesn't know, Lennox doesn't know too. It's simple.

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. You used the word COULD which is an assumption yet you drew a conclusion from it.

J.ohnydon22, the comment by c.atfishbilly proves my point.

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

My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibilityof extraterrestrial life.
Notice I said "could" it wasn't a definitive statement.
Besides a lot of scientists think its plausible.
If you want to discuss this, open another thread.

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.

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

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?

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 ?

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

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

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

We know , only the atheists speculate and fantasize

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

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

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.

KingEbukasBlog:


The video link I posted to you explains this perfectly .

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 (Aguirre-Gratton model)

Therefore the universe came from nothing ?

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

See my latest response to Johnydon22

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.

KingEbukasBlog:


1. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY



2. Physicists Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstei on the universe having a beginning : http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

3. Nilakshi Veerabathina : The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old : http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~nilakshi/chap26.pdf

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.

You don't understand what he meant . Physicist and Theologian Isaac Newton believed that space and time had existed before the moment of creation and that God is everlasting (existing from infinite time in the past ) occupying infinite space , thats why Hawking an atheist went on to say

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

since he did not believe in God .

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.

Of course



This is an argument from incredulity .

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

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no scientific consensus on evolution , should we call it speculation too ?

There's a difference between speculation and hard evidence. The origin of the universe is purely speculative, no shred of evidence.
However, evolution has tons of evidence to back it up and is one of the most wisely accepted theory in natural sciences, so it can't be speculation.

He stated clearly that the universe hasn't existed forever .

Hawking also said this in that lecture.
As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang

As you can see, the beginning of the universe and time was set as a matter of "convenience'

How many times will I explain this same thing ? God being the First Cause is a concept of creation , an eternal universe which coexists with God is another concept of creation .

https://www.nairaland.com/3914088/deism-last-refuge-dubious-religious/7#58379572

You are the same guy I discussed this same thing with here , you want us to go over it again ?

Creatio ex materia is a theological concept.
I don't see why a god needs to sustain a universe if it didn't create it. There's nothing to infer from that a god sustains the universe sef.

KingEbukasBlog:


1. Stop talking of an eternal universe if you cannot produce scientific evidence that the universe is one

Nobody knows if the universe is eternal or has a beginning. There's no scientific consensus of its Origin.
All we have are speculations.

2. Here is Stephen Hawking's lecture on why there is no evidence for an eternal universe

www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

This a condensed A Brief History of Time.
The whole book gives a clearer picture. Even the quote I posted for Felix is smack there in the lecture.

3. How does an eternal universe preclude the existence of God ?

For me, An eternal universe precludes the existence of a god because it isn't the first cause, so I don't see why it should be there in the first place.
You can shout Creatio ex materia all you want, it's purely a theological position. I don't see how god "sustains" the universe.

KingEbukasBlog:


Taaa !

Who told you that ? What gallimaufry of pseudo-science is this ?

Go read about the Planck's epoch, the big bang theory.
This link might help too.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm
The big bang never said anything about the origin of the universe.
It could have been eternal, this our present universe could have been the 6000 life cycle of the universe, all we have is speculation.

felixomor:


No it wasnt. There is no evidence for that

Even if u are correct,
And you will even still end up deadlocking yourself
With the question;
What gave rise to the previous universe?

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

Secondly,
The cabon dating age for the components of this universe would all be wrong and dating as a whole will be wrong, if what you are saying is correct.....

You see,
Its either you loose big or loose small.

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

Martinez19:
Nde are real. You know that people are good are deception and propaganda. Some nde are concocted to propagate christianity or Islam as the case might be. Some concoct nde for personal gain . Remember it is okay, in the quran, to lie for the sake of Islam.

I never said that NDEs aren't real.

Guess you've never heard of LYING FOR Jesus.

felixomor:


You haven't said anything.
Scientists say the universe has a beginning and an age.

But unfortunately, because it bursts your bubble,
You want to argue.
You start propounding your own theories.

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking stated it clearly that

As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang”

It has also been proven that there was "time" before the Planck's epoch.
So, this present version of our universe might have a "beginning", but it was existing in another form before it started expanding.