'Jesus was not the messiah'

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, no actual *evidence* about what reality was like before the Big Bang then? None of those declarations seem like ones made in scientific papers, anyway, rather ones in pop-science books which are infamously poorly made if you want to learn about science.

But, okay, you haven't provided any *evidence* to established even the most basic point that you need to but I suppose we can pretend you did in order to move things along. That still would not count as *evidence* of a creator, only of a creation.

I gave you quotes from the experts in the field. That's evidence. I'm not a cosmologist. I'm going on what cosmologists are saying.

What's illogical is to brush off what the professionals are saying, as you are doing now.

You have given me no reason to assume you are more learned on the subject than they are.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is all self contradictory. If an entity can exist outside of time then by your own argument things can exist outside of time. Sentience is not a necessity.

So let's see you've given no *evidence* and the parts of your argument supposedly based on reason disprove themselves (which you attempt to resolve with a roundabout Special Pleading argument).

You did not pay attention to my argument. I allowed for the possibility that the necessary and sufficient conditions are eternal. I NEVER said that something has to be sentient to be eternal. I showed why, in this case, it is logically impossible that a non sentient set of conditions created the universe. Read over it again.

Tac..logic can only take you so far. You can come up with an entirely logical conclusion yet still be wrong. But from what I have read you provide no proof for any of your claims, just rhetoric, most of it from theists like William Craig who btw also provides no proof for any of his claims meaning your "sources" are not legit.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Tac..logic can only take you so far. You can come up with an entirely logical conclusion yet still be wrong. But from what I have read you provide no proof for any of your claims, just rhetoric, most of it from theists like William Craig who btw also provides no proof for any of his claims meaning your "sources" are not legit.

What do you mean I have provided no evidence? What were all those quotes I gave you? What evidence are you looking for? Point out the specific premise of the argument that you would like me to provide evidence for.

Never claimed to be all knowing about science and religion. Wasn't my major in college. My major was American Civil War plus minored in Modern Middle East.

Back to what I was writing. If there is nothing, not a shred of matter in the universe, then how can there be a big bang? You did not answer my question why there are not any more galaxies being formed or evolution still happening today. Did matter simply say "well, we're done." You are basing your beliefs on faith - scientific faith. Why are human and primate not compatable. You would argue this is scientific fact. Does matter magically create an explosive device? Does matter magically build a car? It takes mankind to do that. Man is very arrogant to believe that everything can be explained with science.

As to your question about the crossover between man and primates on my first post - in the 1930s, Stalin attempted to create a super soldier using primate DNA. A woman volunteered and they put primate sperm in one of her eggs. It didn't work even after several attempts.

And nobody answered the question of the medical mysteries on spontaneous healing. Nobody answered how the congresswoman who should be dead survived and is now up, walking and talking. The exit wound from a 9mm is pretty destructive. Can you explain it please? She should have been DOA or killed instantly.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Back to what I was writing. If there is nothing, not a shred of matter in the universe, then how can there be a big bang?

There's no good answer to that yet, and there may well never be.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
You did not answer my question why there are not any more galaxies being formed or evolution still happening today.

Neither of those has stopped.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Why are human and primate not compatable.

Because they are different species.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Does matter magically create an explosive device? Does matter magically build a car?

So? Matter spontaneously does all kinds of other things. I don't believe anyone has claimed that cars were created by the Big Bang, anyway.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
And nobody answered the question of the medical mysteries on spontaneous healing. Nobody answered how the congresswoman who should be dead survived and is now up, walking and talking. The exit wound from a 9mm is pretty destructive. Can you explain it please? She should have been DOA or killed instantly.

There are in fact hundreds of stories of people being shot in the head with pistols and surviving. We know that is the sort of thing that just happens sometimes. Terminal ballistics is one of the least studied phenomenon in all of physics (because scientists aren't willing to just shoot people and see what happens). So the reason there is no explanation is not because its inexplicable, it's because no one is willing to study it.

As a general rule, however, living things are incredibly easy to injure but ridiculously hard to kill.

J3$U$ W@S N()T TH3 M3$$1@H!!!!! P3R1()D

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean I have provided no evidence? What were all those quotes I gave you? What evidence are you looking for? Point out the specific premise of the argument that you would like me to provide evidence for.

How about we start with god's existence, since it is apparent he exists provide the sources you looked into to come to that conclusion. I could make up a quote right now and say it comes from a lead expert in the scientific field...I want links. Preferably non-bias ones.

TH3 D3@D S3@ SCR()LL$?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
How about we start with god's existence, since it is apparent he exists provide the sources you looked into to come to that conclusion. I could make up a quote right now and say it comes from a lead expert in the scientific field...I want links. Preferably non-bias ones.

God's existence is what that argument I just gave is suppose to show. It's a deductive argument, which means if the premises are all true, then the conclusion MUST be true. I hold that all the premises are true. So which premise do you disagree with?

Originally posted by TacDavey
God's existence is what that argument I just gave is suppose to show. It's a deductive argument, which means if the premises are all true, then the conclusion MUST be true.

WRONG!

It means that if the premises are true, the form is valid, and there are no informal fallacies committed then the conclusion must be true. You never gave good support to your premises (so we have no reason to accept any of them as true) and you commit all kids of different informal fallacies. I'm too bored to see if you screwed up the form as well.

Originally posted by TacDavey
2.) A set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe. (This is basically saying anything else)

But it cannot be 2, and here's why. Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right? That means it has to be eternal. Here's the problem with point 2. Whenever the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of something are met (Such as a spark needs heat, friction etc etc) it will always come about. No exceptions. But if you hold 2 to be true, you would have to admit that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible.

...

I don't understand this point, maybe I'm totally missing it.

So, lets say in a given environment (X) a certain event (Y) can only occur if certain necessary and sufficient criteria are met (A, B, C).

So, if A B and C occur in X, Y happens.

how does this necessitate a point where A, B and C are true but not Y? by definition, if A, B and C occur, but not Y, A B and C are not sufficient to produce Y.

EDIT: so, for example, lets say Y = falling, X = Earth, and A = not holding onto something, B = not standing on anything, and C = body not supported by any object

so, if A, B & C are true, at location X, Y happens. The only argument you could make where A/B/C are true but not Y is of an entirely semantic nature [ie: you aren't falling until you travel 1 inch], but that simply redefines Y such that A, B and C are no longer sufficient to produce Y [a D clause would need to be entered where D = travels 1 inch].

Originally posted by TacDavey
Eternal is outside of time. Not being bound by time. Having no beginning, no end.

by your definition the point of singularity is without a doubt classified as not eternal.. since it obviously had an end and there's no reason to assume it didn't have a beginning.

so essentially you are assuming that whatever 'created' time must have had properties that are not supported by the current model of the conditions that hypothetically preceded the big bang/creation of our universe.

you then use this unnecessary assumption to pose the loaded question 'what created time' with the unfounded condition that whatever it was had to have some sort of mystical 'eternal' property.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WRONG!

It means that if the premises are true, the form is valid, and there are no informal fallacies committed then the conclusion must be true. You never gave good support to your premises (so we have no reason to accept any of them as true) and you commit all kids of different informal fallacies. I'm too bored to see if you screwed up the form as well.

Well, yes, the argument has to be set up correctly. I figured it went without saying that if the argument isn't done correctly it wouldn't be considered true.

You claim I commit fallacies but don't specify where. I just asked you to point out which premise you disagree with or want to see evidence for. Instead, you simply accuse me of not providing evidence. How about you pick a spot you think I screwed up on and point it out so I can defend it and we can get this debate rolling?

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
And nobody answered the question of the medical mysteries on spontaneous healing. Nobody answered how the congresswoman who should be dead survived and is now up, walking and talking. The exit wound from a 9mm is pretty destructive. Can you explain it please? She should have been DOA or killed instantly.

re: phineas gage

Originally posted by inimalist
...

I don't understand this point, maybe I'm totally missing it.

So, lets say in a given environment (X) a certain event (Y) can only occur if certain [b]necessary and sufficient criteria are met (A, B, C).

So, if A B and C occur in X, Y happens.

how does this necessitate a point where A, B and C are true but not Y? by definition, if A, B and C occur, but not Y, A B and C are not sufficient to produce Y.

EDIT: so, for example, lets say Y = falling, X = Earth, and A = not holding onto something, B = not standing on anything, and C = body not supported by any object

so, if A, B & C are true, at location X, Y happens. The only argument you could make where A/B/C are true but not Y is of an entirely semantic nature [ie: you aren't falling until you travel 1 inch], but that simply redefines Y such that A, B and C are no longer sufficient to produce Y [a D clause would need to be entered where D = travels 1 inch]. [/B]

No no, that's the point. If A, B, and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Y to happen and they are all met, Y will ALWAYS happen. No exceptions.

Which is why it is impossible for the universe to have been created by a set of conditions. Because once they are met, it MUST happen. But since whatever created the universe was outside of time, that means that you would be claiming that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the conditions were there, but did not produce a universe.

Let me try and further explain it. Say AB and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a universe to be created. Now say they are eternal, as they would have to be. That means they are ALWAYS met. You will never be in a situation in which there is not A, B or C. Right? However, since the universe has a beginning, that means that it didn't exist at one time, right? It had to NOT exist before it could BEGIN to exist. But since AB and C are ALWAYS there, that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence when AB and C existed, but there was no universe, which is, as even you pointed out, logically impossible.

Originally posted by red g jacks
this isn't scientific at all, but let's proceed anyway

by your definition the point of singularity is without a doubt classified as not eternal.. since it obviously had an end and there's no reason to assume it didn't have a beginning.

so essentially you are assuming that whatever 'created' time must have had properties that are not supported by the current model of the conditions that hypothetically preceded the big bang/creation of our universe.

you then use this unnecessary assumption to pose the loaded question 'what created time' with the unfounded condition that whatever it was had to have some sort of mystical 'eternal' property.

Okay, whatever created time had to be outside of time. Do we agree?

Originally posted by TacDavey
No no, that's the point. If A, B, and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Y to happen and they are all met, Y will ALWAYS happen. No exceptions.

Which is why it is impossible for the universe to have been created by a set of conditions. Because once they are met, it MUST happen. But since whatever created the universe was outside of time, that means that you would be claiming that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the conditions were there, but did not produce a universe.

Let me try and further explain it. Say AB and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a universe to be created. Now say they are eternal, as they would have to be. That means they are ALWAYS met. You will never be in a situation in which there is not A, B or C. Right? However, since the universe has a beginning, that means that it didn't exist at one time, right? It had to NOT exist before it could BEGIN to exist. But since AB and C are ALWAYS there, that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence when AB and C existed, but there was no universe, which is, as even you pointed out, logically impossible.

oh, ok, I see where you mixed it up

what evidence do you have to support the claim that things in the pre-universe were unchanging?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Okay, whatever created time had to be outside of time. Do we agree?

outside of the time that is determined by the physical nature of our universe, sure

outside of the laws of causality? no, there is no reason to believe this and all mathematical models of the big bang that I know of assume otherwise

do you have any reason to believe otherwise? Like, a model of pre-universe that shows absolute and eternal homogeneity?

i dont agree that time was specifically 'created,' i think it emerged as one of the dimensions of the universe as we perceive it today. before the universe existed this dimension/mode of measurment also didn't exist. i don't think that necessarily implies any sort of supernatural intervention.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, ok, I see where you mixed it up

what evidence do you have to support the claim that things in the pre-universe were unchanging?

Are you asking me what evidence I have that time came into existence at the Big Bang? It's all there in the quotes.

Originally posted by inimalist
outside of the time that is determined by the physical nature of our universe, sure

outside of the laws of causality? no, there is no reason to believe this and all mathematical models of the big bang that I know of assume otherwise

do you have any reason to believe otherwise? Like, a model of pre-universe that shows absolute and eternal homogeneity?

If something has no beginning it doesn't need a cause. I don't get what you're saying here...

According to modern cosmology, matter, space, and time came into being at the Big Bang. So before the Big Bang, none of those things existed.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dont agree that time was specifically 'created,' i think it emerged as one of the dimensions of the universe as we perceive it today. before the universe existed this dimension/mode of measurment also didn't exist. i don't think that necessarily implies any sort of supernatural intervention.

The argument is suppose to show that it DOES need supernatural intervention. The Big Bang cannot have been caused by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. That's what the argument shows, if you disagree, point out where the argument is flawed. It would be easier if you could point out a specific premise that you disagree with so I can respond to it.

i disagree with the premise that whatever resulted in the creation of 'time' as we know it was 'eternal' in the sense that it had no beginning and no end. i view time not as a restrictive force but as a dimension of our own universe. i have presented several alternative scenarios to your assertion that singularity had to be a never ending eternal state prior to the big bang, but you rejected those without giving any definitive reason why they couldn't be true.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The argument is suppose to show that it DOES need supernatural intervention. The Big Bang cannot have been caused by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. That's what the argument shows, if you disagree, point out where the argument is flawed. It would be easier if you could point out a specific premise that you disagree with so I can respond to it.

This self contradictory. If the supernatural created the Big Bang then the supernatural is sufficient to cause it. If it could only be the supernatural then it is necessary.