why are you an atheist?

Completely wrong - there is absolutely no evidence which proves a beginning of the universe - the Big Bang is merely a theory; Quantum says that it did not have a begining - it's infinite. Logically it must be infinite to avoid contradiction. Just go read up on relativity and Quantum theory - none of those two can proof that it did or didn't have a beginning - again you are making unsubstantiated assumptions which shows a complete lack of knowledge of the subject at hand.

Proven? To what degree? You have to understand theories in the context of science. Evidence has told us that there was a finite begining point. What theory is it that states otherwise?

I know youve claimed this before but yet even till now, you have yet to state what theory it is.

Ive already "read up" on the theory of relatively and quantum theory, now please go ahead.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen J. Gould

True science is provable and repeatable, but that never stopped science from wondering "what if." That's how we got to where we are.

ClickClick..I'm coming from the point that if this universe with all it's energy came from a Creator then it's initial energy is eternal.

Originally posted by debbiejo
True science is provable and repeatable, but that never stopped science from wondering "what if." That's how we got to where we are.

The point is that not all possibilities merit equal consideration.

clickclick -- there is NO evidence whatsoever as to how the universe began, if it even did. If you want to keep using this claim of yours that such evidence exists, then you must post this so-called evidence of yours or shut up. And like I said before, do NOT pull the "you don't want to hear it" argument, because I'm very curious as to what evidence exists as to how the universe existed. By stating that evidence existed you have planted the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders, so either post it or shut up about it.

debbiejo -- No. Science is NOT 100% provable, unless it is a law. Gravity is a law, because whenever you drop something it WILL go down; it's not going to occasionally shoot off in some random directions. Repeatable does not mean proven. In science, you say that something is supported, not proven. And repeatable only means that if you have a certain test or experiment or effect, you expect a certain end result to occur. This is how they test theories. But proven? No. Supported, yes.

Divine Number of PHI ??? Phi is not a divine number - that's an interpretation by creationists, rather, the number phi is merely a mental construct like all of mathematics - it has no connection with reality as EINSTEIN said. We merely see phi in many things, but that is merely a superimposition of something completely mental onto a physical world which is not aware of phi - phi is human invented, nature is not. Nature without human interpretation is not aware, so nature is not aware of phi - phi is in the mind. Einstein himself said that the more mathematically things get, the less real they are, and the more real things are, the less mathematical they are.

Originally posted by Philosophicus
Divine Number of PHI ??? Phi is not a divine number - that's an interpretation by creationists, rather, the number phi is merely a mental construct like all of mathematics - it has no connection with reality as EINSTEIN said. We merely see phi in many things, but that is merely a superimposition of something completely mental onto a physical world which is not aware of phi - phi is human invented, nature is not. Nature without human interpretation is not aware, so nature is not aware of phi - phi is in the mind. Einstein himself said that the more mathematically things get, the less real they are, and the more real things are, the less mathematical they are.

Interesting....have you been reading??

PHI, the 21st letter of the greek alphabet so?....nothing more nothing less 😖mart: 😖mart:

Originally posted by finti
PHI, the 21st letter of the greek alphabet so?....nothing more nothing less 😖mart: 😖mart:

There's more to it than that..At least do a net search on "the divine number of PHI" so you know what I'm taling about.

There's more to it than that..At least do a net search on "the divine number of PHI" so you know what I'm taling about.

I don't think he is unaware of what you are talking about, I think he is saying that it's just bunk.

Yes Phi is just a number and has the ability to beguile people just like all other mathematical 'miracles'. 😆 There's no reality in maths or numbers - it's all in the mind.

There's more to it than that..At least do a net search on "the divine number of PHI" so you know what I'm taling about.

IN many cases there is more truth to some math than there will ever be in philosphy though philo.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
IN many cases there is more truth to some math than there will ever be in philosphy though philo.

That's crap! Even Einstein admitted that maths do not refer to reality.

Even Einstein admitted that maths do not refer to reality

Number don't lie, that's way mathematicians love them so. There's truth in them. Numbers arn't mans inventions, just man discovery.

clickclick -- there is NO evidence whatsoever as to how the universe began, if it even did. If you want to keep using this claim of yours that such evidence exists, then you must post this so-called evidence of yours or shut up. And like I said before, do NOT pull the "you don't want to hear it" argument, because I'm very curious as to what evidence exists as to how the universe existed. By stating that evidence existed you have planted the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders, so either post it or shut up about it.

How it began? The question is whether or not it began. I asked what theory is it that purports that the universe did not have a finite begining point.

BTW, ive never said to you "you dont want to hear it" so stop using that lame complaint.

numbers neither lie, nor do they tell the truth...and they certainly don't refer to a creator.

Originally posted by clickclick
How it began? The question is whether or not it began. I asked what theory is it that purports that the universe did not have a finite begining point.

BTW, ive never said to you "you dont want to hear it" so stop using that lame complaint.

You said that there was evidence that it began at a finite point. I want to hear that evidence.

And you've said numerous times (particularly in the "True or False" thread) that you wouldn't post this evidence of yours because no one would be interested in hearing it. If I need to I'll go and quote everytime you've said it.

Originally posted by finti
yeah so it is with philosophy

Good one...I can't believe I agree with you

You said that there was evidence that it began at a finite point. I want to hear that evidence.

And you've said numerous times (particularly in the "True or False" thread) that you wouldn't post this evidence of yours because no one would be interested in hearing it. If I need to I'll go and quote everytime you've said it.

Go ahead and quote it. That was my response to philo, with reason. You keep referencing that though as if thats my typical response. Its pretty lame really.

Anyway, yes there is evidence for the universe having begun to exist as opposed to, always existing. CMBR for instance, is evidence that supports the universe having a begining.

Though if you disagree, state what theory you believe.