13 Spider Bloody Chain
Grandmaster Knight
Cloud Breaker said:He exploded and what we see now are his remnants.
That's actually the case in certain Chinese myths, IIRC.
Cloud Breaker said:He exploded and what we see now are his remnants.
ealabor said:I have yet to hear of another universe appearing within our universe.
You confuse me with someone else. I claimed no such thing. I take no stand in the matter, other than that it's pure speculation to say ANYTHING about absolutes based on your (or anyone's) unconfirmed senses. I make no claims, I have nothing to prove. You on the otherhand have a whole load. Good luck proving your points.Again, the proof is our existence. Now refute that by explaining how it's logical that we should appear from nothingness.
That there is an infinite amount of valid possibilities the universe came to be and you just happen to choose creation because it suits you best.Funny. What do I not understand?
Again you mix me with someone else. But here I agree with you. You're all ****ing looney thinking you can actually know something for sure. Absolutely wacko.It's a hypocritical approach to scoff belief in a creator, yet blindly embrace an existence derrived from starting from nothingness.
As previously stated I make no claims, thus I need to prove nothing on the material level (I did make a claim that you're all nutters, but that's what I am trying to point out here).Very mature. Now do you want to cite some fundamentals and evidence yourself, or just name call.
It is illogical to assume something so loosely. It is logical not to assume. It is even less logical to believe without a doubt.ealabor said:Occam's Razor applied, the simplest explanation is that we are subject to creation. Creation is a working template in our universe, and it is illogical to throw away that template and suggest that the universe itself was created from nothingness, for we are here now.
Um, no. Deductive logic says that we should probably have something to work from before we start making **** up.ealabor said:Deductive logic suggests that in fact it is the right answer.
Nash said:Just a quick question: If there is indeed a creator, what did that creator make the universe out of?
Ursca said:Um, no. Deductive logic says that we should probably have something to work from before we start making **** up.
ealabor said:jekelof said:Nope. The fact that we don't know how everything started doesn't prove that some omnipotent being created everything.
Deductive logic suggests that in fact it is the right answer.
Occam's Razor applied, the simplest explanation is that we are subject to creation. Creation is a working template in our universe, and it is illogical to throw away that template and suggest that the universe itself was created from nothingness, for we are here now.
If there were a case to present which proves that matter can come from nothingness, then there is grounds for debate concerning our universe's inception without creation. I have yet to hear of another universe appearing within our universe. Theres always a concept of multiverse, yet staying with the logic of Occam's Razor, such a universe would not exist out of a known template which is our universe. That would then contain matter exploding from finite point as suggested from the BB theory, and such an explosion wouldn't go unnoticed in the universe, yet they arent happening.
Kobrag said:which image is the real one?
As Ilex says, I don't make any claims concerning the beginning of the universe. If anything, I favour the idea that it is infinite and eternal. But I can't say for certain exactly how it works.ealabor said:Ursca said:Um, no. Deductive logic says that we should probably have something to work from before we start making **** up.
and creation is that template. Stars, gas, dust which in turn create planets, and that dust primordial life, and that life up to man. Thats a well documented and accepted template.
Now that we come from nothingness? good luck applying logic to that template.
Sure:Cloud Breaker said:Does someone have a picture of one of those spaghetti monsters?
Which fails. Whether sparking up the big bang, or simply saying "let there be rock" we have causation (act of creation) and effect (the universe is created), ergo some timeline must be in effect which by the arguments own logic, requires God also have a beginning point. And that's before we ask why God can be outside of time and eternal and thus not require causation, and yet the big bang singularity which we *know* is outside of what we define as time necessitates causation!13 Spider Bloody Chain said:From my dealings with my devout Christian family, some Christians would respond with, "God always was and will be", and claim that he is "outside of time".
And like I said, the quantum spacefoam theory merely describes cause and effect. You've already used the process in your own example, if you're going to reject the theory on the basis it's intangible, then you're going to have problems proving gravity.ealabor said:Between spacefoam theory and theory of gravity, safe money's on gravity. Gravity being much more tangible. I've not observed a gravity particle, yet I know there is a basis for the concept in that I can toss something in the air and uh.. well, we know what happens then.
Bypassing is not breaking the barrier, it's bypassing it. You don't move faster than light by not actually moving at all.I will imagine that too will fall to our persistance. Surely you know now of the many concepts in bypassing the barrier
And yet it's perfectly logical for God to have come from nothing?Precisely. I never argued that we came from nothing. My stance as stated in nearly every post is that it is illogical to have come from nothing.
Why?Again, the universe in which time and space are fundamental has to have been created by a being to which time and space do not apply.
In which case, 1. Why does this apply to God, and not the singularity responsible for the big bang, and 2. Explain how God creates the universe without having a cause and effect mechanism.Therefore time does not apply to the Creator, and a eternal, or really a static existence is an achievable concept
That's the worst application of Occam's Razor since Sweeney Todd. Adding in a creator shifts the same problems you have with a naturally arising universe to a naturally arising creator, with the added complications that you now have to explain the nature, motivation and method of this creator on top of where it came from.Occam's Razor applied, the simplest explanation is that we are subject to creation.
Ignoring your rather unique model of the big bang theory there, would you care to explain why creation had to be initiated?I just stay with the working template which is logical. As far as the process of the creation of the universe, the BB theory is as good as any. However it had to be initiated, as processed by logic
Archonsod said:That's the worst application of Occam's Razor since Sweeney Todd.
jekelof said:Then we're back to square one with me saying, where did this creator come from? Nothing?
Calathar said:
Yoshiboy said:If God was the initiation to the Big Bang then you imply he must be beyond space and time.
Yoshiboy said:If he is not within space and time he becomes impossible to describe in any meaningful way.