Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# God is the *only* logical cause for the BB

 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PMPosted: 3 years agoEither:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
 Posts: 11,322 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 9:15:25 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.There was no Big Bang. It's only a theory that has never been proven to be the Truth. Only invisible vibrations exist but they do not take up any space and there's no matter in them. Time only exists as an illusion from each created being's perspective.
 Posts: 2,094 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 9:17:55 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.And we don't know what happened so... ***insert miracle here***It doesn't work that way. We can't just use God to fill in the blanks of the unexplained. That's where all the Greek gods came from, remember?A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
 Posts: 1,310 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.
 Posts: 9,725 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:10:18 PMPosted: 3 years agoHere we go again. You do have to hand it to Ben, who must love the environment. He's really into this recycling business.Fungus: "Here we have a wasp and spider trapped in amber. No visible evolutionary changes". Reality: Both spider and wasp are extinct. Sub-species of same wasp parasitizes spider eggs.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.
 Posts: 2,744 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:11:25 PMPosted: 3 years agoGod didn't need a BB. He created all things by His Word, not be making a ball of eternal matter explode.
 Posts: 1,310 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.
 Posts: 1,310 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:41:17 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.You're assuming that there is something to quantify. You've provided no reasoning for the assertion that anything can be quantified. That's what I'm asking you to explain. So far, all I see is "if a spark happens, then we can count the number of sparks back to a 0 point." How did you arrive at the idea that there is a 0 point to count back to? How did you arrive at the idea that there is a finite number of "sparks?"
 Posts: 8,132 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingI'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.or(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:45:40 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingI'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.Read about an inch lower.or(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
 Posts: 8,132 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:51:27 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:45:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingI'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.Read about an inch lower.Ok, thanks for that. Faulty information in the first part, and argument from ignorance in the second... you're two for two there, buddy.or(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:53:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:41:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.You're assuming that there is something to quantify. You've provided no reasoning for the assertion that anything can be quantified. That's what I'm asking you to explain. So far, all I see is "if a spark happens, then we can count the number of sparks back to a 0 point." How did you arrive at the idea that there is a 0 point to count back to? How did you arrive at the idea that there is a finite number of "sparks?"Mathematics expresses real things. If I begin with two objects and one is removed, this can be expressed mathematically as 2 - 1. It's the same thing wih quantifying fluctuations. A fluctuation can be expressed as a 1. If these fluctuations are infinite, no successive quantification of these fluctuations is possible. But if the probability of a spark occurring is innate to these fluctuations, any innate probability will inevitably be reached given an infinite number of chances. Once this probability is inevitably reached, we can quantify the number of successive fluctuations back to point 0. Hence, it can't be eternal.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:55:52 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:45:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingI'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.Read about an inch lower.Ok, thanks for that. Faulty information in the first part, and argument from ignorance in the second... you're two for two there, buddy.If you actually read my post you'd see that I'm setting up a dichotomy.or(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
 Posts: 1,310 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/3/2014 10:56:13 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/3/2014 10:53:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:41:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either:(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothingor(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.You're assuming that there is something to quantify. You've provided no reasoning for the assertion that anything can be quantified. That's what I'm asking you to explain. So far, all I see is "if a spark happens, then we can count the number of sparks back to a 0 point." How did you arrive at the idea that there is a 0 point to count back to? How did you arrive at the idea that there is a finite number of "sparks?"Mathematics expresses real things. If I begin with two objects and one is removed, this can be expressed mathematically as 2 - 1. It's the same thing wih quantifying fluctuations. A fluctuation can be expressed as a 1. If these fluctuations are infinite, no successive quantification of these fluctuations is possible. But if the probability of a spark occurring is innate to these fluctuations, any innate probability will inevitably be reached given an infinite number of chances. Once this probability is inevitably reached, we can quantify the number of successive fluctuations back to point 0. Hence, it can't be eternal.How do you quantify the number of fluctuations back to a point 0? How do you know a 0 point even exists?