Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical proof of the supernatural?

a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:05:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well I don't know If would call it proof, but here's what I have to say. The universe had a beginning, we call that the Big Bang. Time, space, matter and nature itself started from the Big Bang. Since the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it to begin. What ever started the universe is outside of nature and the universe and is therefore supernatural by definition. What do you guys think?
The truth will set you free
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:06:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Immediate problems:

1. The universe could be infinite, meaning that it would have existed for an infinitely long period of time.
2. Even if we assume the universe is finite, why does having a beginning necessitate a cause to its cause? What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

These are simply the same problems with the cosmological argument.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:20:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:06:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
Immediate problems:

1. The universe could be infinite, meaning that it would have existed for an infinitely long period of time.
2. Even if we assume the universe is finite, why does having a beginning necessitate a cause to its cause? What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

These are simply the same problems with the cosmological argument.

Obvious rebuttals:

1. Uh, yeah that makes sense. (Not. And it comes to a point of arbitrary denial of divinity.)
2. Pft. Sense is sense dude. Once it goes beyond sense, you might as well call it "God".
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:24:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:20:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:06:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
Immediate problems:

1. The universe could be infinite, meaning that it would have existed for an infinitely long period of time.
2. Even if we assume the universe is finite, why does having a beginning necessitate a cause to its cause? What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

These are simply the same problems with the cosmological argument.

Obvious rebuttals:

1. Uh, yeah that makes sense. (Not. And it comes to a point of arbitrary denial of divinity.)

A universe infinite in space would also be infinite in time, as the two are interrelated. I'm not saying that God is impossible in an infinite universe, but I'm saying that any proofs for the existence of God contingent on a finite universe are unsound.
2. Pft. Sense is sense dude. Once it goes beyond sense, you might as well call it "God".

I'm going to repeat this again - What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:28:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:24:04 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:20:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:06:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
Immediate problems:

1. The universe could be infinite, meaning that it would have existed for an infinitely long period of time.
2. Even if we assume the universe is finite, why does having a beginning necessitate a cause to its cause? What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

These are simply the same problems with the cosmological argument.

Obvious rebuttals:

1. Uh, yeah that makes sense. (Not. And it comes to a point of arbitrary denial of divinity.)

A universe infinite in space would also be infinite in time, as the two are interrelated. I'm not saying that God is impossible in an infinite universe, but I'm saying that any proofs for the existence of God contingent on a finite universe are unsound.

And I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your asserting possible infiniteness as a denial of the supernatural.

2. Pft. Sense is sense dude. Once it goes beyond sense, you might as well call it "God".

I'm going to repeat this again - What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

Who said anything about physics? We're talking about pure sense. Even all those notions of eternal return and whatever have the casual chain stuck in there somewhere (besides the part where it's god and there's no beginning and it doesn't make any sense).
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:31:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Science cannot deal in that which is not only counter-intuitive, but in fact makes no sense whatsoever. Breaking the causal chain is one such instance of this senselessness.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:42:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.

Give the f*cked up cynicism bit a rest, sadolite, lol. What you need need is some "love thy neighbour" religion dude.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:52:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:42:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.

Give the f*cked up cynicism bit a rest, sadolite, lol. What you need need is some "love thy neighbour" religion dude.

So then my example is incorrect and if so show how.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:04:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:52:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:42:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.

Give the f*cked up cynicism bit a rest, sadolite, lol. What you need need is some "love thy neighbour" religion dude.

So then my example is incorrect and if so show how.

It's a big scary world and we're just eyes looking out of eye sockets, sadolite. Why don't you go find some poor kids and see if they want any work instead of just shouting that the state should cut them off?
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:24:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:06:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
Immediate problems:

1. The universe could be infinite, meaning that it would have existed for an infinitely long period of time.
2. Even if we assume the universe is finite, why does having a beginning necessitate a cause to its cause? What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

These are simply the same problems with the cosmological argument.

1) There is a very obvious problem with your statement. The universe had a beginning, the Big Bang, therefore it could not have had existed forever.

2) So are you stating that the universe could have come from nothing? That sounds like illogical speculation to me. Things do not appear on their own. If the universe didn't have a beginning, then it could not have a cause. But it did have a beginning, so something must have caused it to begin.
The truth will set you free
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:54:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 1:05:31 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Well I don't know If would call it proof, but here's what I have to say. The universe had a beginning, we call that the Big Bang.

Correct.

Time, space, matter and nature itself started from the Big Bang.

Correct.

Since the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it to begin.

Unfounded assertion. The universe may have been the result of a quantum fluctuation, and therefore a random, causeless event.

What ever started the universe is outside of nature and the universe and is therefore supernatural by definition. What do you guys think?

Unsupportable conclusion drawn from unfounded assertion. What's more, it cannot be tested.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:25:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:24:53 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:06:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
Immediate problems:

1. The universe could be infinite, meaning that it would have existed for an infinitely long period of time.
2. Even if we assume the universe is finite, why does having a beginning necessitate a cause to its cause? What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

These are simply the same problems with the cosmological argument.


1) There is a very obvious problem with your statement. The universe had a beginning, the Big Bang, therefore it could not have had existed forever.

2) So are you stating that the universe could have come from nothing? That sounds like illogical speculation to me. Things do not appear on their own. If the universe didn't have a beginning, then it could not have a cause. But it did have a beginning, so something must have caused it to begin.

1. Just because you start with "the universe had a beginning" doesn't make it so. The big bang is the point in time where we can not go back any further and is accepted to be the beginning of the universe as we know it. But what if anything existed before or even if there is a before is still a very open question in science.

2. It is an illogical statement if you are defining "nothing" as "that from which something cannot come", which is what everyone who tries to make this argument does. The big problem of course is that no one has ever seen nothing, so we cannot test it to know what its properties are or whether something can come from it.

Also, the law of causality is a law within the universe. You are talking about a cause external to the universe so there is no reason to assume that it must follow the same laws.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:39:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:04:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:52:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:42:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.

Give the f*cked up cynicism bit a rest, sadolite, lol. What you need need is some "love thy neighbour" religion dude.

So then my example is incorrect and if so show how.

It's a big scary world and we're just eyes looking out of eye sockets, sadolite. Why don't you go find some poor kids and see if they want any work instead of just shouting that the state should cut them off?

How do you extrapolate a logic example into me cutting people off welfare. Not much logic in this rebuttal. One must assess the kind of logic the OP requires in order to provide a logical argument that the OP will accept . As I have shown in my example and your rebuttals to my example, logic is highly subjective. Rather than looking at the example you completely ignore the example and try to make the example about some political agenda on my part rather than address the example head on and disprove the example showing there is no correlation between feeding and acquired dependence in both man and animals. Your rebuttal defies all logic. Logic is limiting and useless beyond the natural world. As I have shown
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:44:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:39:27 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:04:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:52:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:42:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.

Give the f*cked up cynicism bit a rest, sadolite, lol. What you need need is some "love thy neighbour" religion dude.

So then my example is incorrect and if so show how.

It's a big scary world and we're just eyes looking out of eye sockets, sadolite. Why don't you go find some poor kids and see if they want any work instead of just shouting that the state should cut them off?

How do you extrapolate a logic example into me cutting people off welfare. Not much logic in this rebuttal. One must assess the kind of logic the OP requires in order to provide a logical argument that the OP will accept . As I have shown in my example and your rebuttals to my example, logic is highly subjective. Rather than looking at the example you completely ignore the example and try to make the example about some political agenda on my part rather than address the example head on and disprove the example showing there is no correlation between feeding and acquired dependence in both man and animals. Your rebuttal defies all logic. Logic is limiting and useless beyond the natural world. As I have shown

Of course there was a f*cking political agenda on your part, dude. And you even went and made a thread in Society after this. And my point is, what the f*ck do you know about people and why they do whatever? Or about welfare and what sh*t would be like without it?

"God is hard work," eh? I'm honestly not even going to bother tackling the parts where you say "logic" lol... Go give some poor black kid a job as a servant of God.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:58:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:44:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 6:39:27 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:04:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:52:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:42:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.

Give the f*cked up cynicism bit a rest, sadolite, lol. What you need need is some "love thy neighbour" religion dude.

So then my example is incorrect and if so show how.

It's a big scary world and we're just eyes looking out of eye sockets, sadolite. Why don't you go find some poor kids and see if they want any work instead of just shouting that the state should cut them off?

How do you extrapolate a logic example into me cutting people off welfare. Not much logic in this rebuttal. One must assess the kind of logic the OP requires in order to provide a logical argument that the OP will accept . As I have shown in my example and your rebuttals to my example, logic is highly subjective. Rather than looking at the example you completely ignore the example and try to make the example about some political agenda on my part rather than address the example head on and disprove the example showing there is no correlation between feeding and acquired dependence in both man and animals. Your rebuttal defies all logic. Logic is limiting and useless beyond the natural world. As I have shown

Of course there was a f*cking political agenda on your part, dude. And you even went and made a thread in Society after this. And my point is, what the f*ck do you know about people and why they do whatever? Or about welfare and what sh*t would be like without it?

"God is hard work," eh? I'm honestly not even going to bother tackling the parts where you say "logic" lol... Go give some poor black kid a job as a servant of God.

Oh I see what happened here, your feelings got hurt and offended. You have confirmation bias. That's a tough disease to get rid of. It took me a better part of 15 years to finally see my confirmation bias.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:14:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:58:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 6:44:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 6:39:27 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:04:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:52:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:42:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:39:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic is to limited a thinking process to understand something supernatural. Logic is best suited to the natural provable world. For example if you feed a wild animal continuously it will become dependent on you for food. "Logic"would dictate that the same is true for humans. But as you can see logic fails even in the natural world, as current logic says humans don't become dependent after decades of being dependent. They are only looking for a hand up not a hand out.

Give the f*cked up cynicism bit a rest, sadolite, lol. What you need need is some "love thy neighbour" religion dude.

So then my example is incorrect and if so show how.

It's a big scary world and we're just eyes looking out of eye sockets, sadolite. Why don't you go find some poor kids and see if they want any work instead of just shouting that the state should cut them off?

How do you extrapolate a logic example into me cutting people off welfare. Not much logic in this rebuttal. One must assess the kind of logic the OP requires in order to provide a logical argument that the OP will accept . As I have shown in my example and your rebuttals to my example, logic is highly subjective. Rather than looking at the example you completely ignore the example and try to make the example about some political agenda on my part rather than address the example head on and disprove the example showing there is no correlation between feeding and acquired dependence in both man and animals. Your rebuttal defies all logic. Logic is limiting and useless beyond the natural world. As I have shown

Of course there was a f*cking political agenda on your part, dude. And you even went and made a thread in Society after this. And my point is, what the f*ck do you know about people and why they do whatever? Or about welfare and what sh*t would be like without it?

"God is hard work," eh? I'm honestly not even going to bother tackling the parts where you say "logic" lol... Go give some poor black kid a job as a servant of God.

Oh I see what happened here, your feelings got hurt and offended. You have confirmation bias. That's a tough disease to get rid of. It took me a better part of 15 years to finally see my confirmation bias.

Dude, where the f*ck did you learn all these words all of a sudden?
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:15:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:24:53 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:06:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
Immediate problems:

1. The universe could be infinite, meaning that it would have existed for an infinitely long period of time.
2. Even if we assume the universe is finite, why does having a beginning necessitate a cause to its cause? What makes the physics of the early universe contingent on the physics of the current universe?

These are simply the same problems with the cosmological argument.


1) There is a very obvious problem with your statement. The universe had a beginning, the Big Bang, therefore it could not have had existed forever.

2) So are you stating that the universe could have come from nothing? That sounds like illogical speculation to me. Things do not appear on their own. If the universe didn't have a beginning, then it could not have a cause. But it did have a beginning, so something must have caused it to begin.

1. Just because you start with "the universe had a beginning" doesn't make it so. The big bang is the point in time where we can not go back any further and is accepted to be the beginning of the universe as we know it. But what if anything existed before or even if there is a before is still a very open question in science.

2. It is an illogical statement if you are defining "nothing" as "that from which something cannot come", which is what everyone who tries to make this argument does. The big problem of course is that no one has ever seen nothing, so we cannot test it to know what its properties are or whether something can come from it.

Also, the law of causality is a law within the universe. You are talking about a cause external to the universe so there is no reason to assume that it must follow the same laws.

1) Good point, but at this point you are just speculating. And as you said, main stream science accepts the Big Bang as the beginning, so my point still stands.

2) "the law of causality is a law within the universe. You are talking about a cause external to the universe so there is no reason to assume that it must follow the same laws."

"The big problem of course is that no one has ever seen nothing, so we cannot test it to know what its properties"

Do you see the problem with your logic here? Apparently its completely okay to assume that the law of causality does not apply to outside our universe while we have never seen the outside, but it is completely wrong to assume that nothing can't produce something because we have never seen nothing.

"we cannot test it to know what its properties" How can we test outside to know that the law of causality does not apply to them? Yet, you just assume that it doesn't. Why shouldn't it apply to other universes or from where ever our universe came from? Also, nothing clearly cannot produce something, it is a logical contradiction. Look to math for evidence. When does 0=1? Never, it cannot.
The truth will set you free
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:21:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Do you see the problem with your logic here? " Interesting choice of words. Almost sounds like you are saying logic is "Subjective"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:54:35 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:05:31 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Well I don't know If would call it proof, but here's what I have to say. The universe had a beginning, we call that the Big Bang.

Correct.

Time, space, matter and nature itself started from the Big Bang.

Correct.

Since the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it to begin.

Unfounded assertion. The universe may have been the result of a quantum fluctuation, and therefore a random, causeless event.

What ever started the universe is outside of nature and the universe and is therefore supernatural by definition. What do you guys think?

Unsupportable conclusion drawn from unfounded assertion. What's more, it cannot be tested.

Good points. But does the universe-from-nothing theory have any validity? I would be appreciative if you could direct to me to some sources.
The truth will set you free
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The laws of thermodynamics agree with you, except for the big bang being the beginning of the creation of the universe. God is not the big bang. God spoke the universe into existence. When it was created, it had the appearance of age. When man sinned, sin messed it up so scientists get all kinds of crazy ideas as they try to prove God did not create the universe. You are on the right track though. God is greater than what he created. God is, was, and alwys will be God. He was God before anything was created. You are supernatural. Nature has no life apart from the spirit God gives. You are a spirit, a living soul in a body. You are a supernatural creation. Everything that has life is supernatural. The whole universe is supernatural because it came into being from something outside of itself.......that something is God. It is not natural for matter to exist. God made laws by which matter exists. Physicists call them the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is God's law for nature, contray to man's hypothesis of evolution which would have to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Only God can create matter. Only God can give life. Every breath of air you draw is a gift from God and is supernatural.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:01:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org...

At this site, an accomplished and respected scientist explains the laws of thermodynamics and why they exclude the possibility of evolution.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:43:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 7:29:57 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:54:35 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:05:31 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Well I don't know If would call it proof, but here's what I have to say. The universe had a beginning, we call that the Big Bang.

Correct.

Time, space, matter and nature itself started from the Big Bang.

Correct.

Since the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it to begin.

Unfounded assertion. The universe may have been the result of a quantum fluctuation, and therefore a random, causeless event.

What ever started the universe is outside of nature and the universe and is therefore supernatural by definition. What do you guys think?

Unsupportable conclusion drawn from unfounded assertion. What's more, it cannot be tested.

Good points. But does the universe-from-nothing theory have any validity? I would be appreciative if you could direct to me to some sources.

You mean is there evidence that this was the case? Of course not, otherwise the debate would be over. However, Occam's Razor says that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one, and we already know that quantum fluctuations can (in theory) create Big Bangs, which makes this more likely than a supernatural designer.