reply to post by Bigwhammy
Its was 1 in 10 ^40 it is called statistically absurd or statistically impossible.
Are you actually arguing 1 in 10^40 is something likely to occur?
Whammy, is this your tactic now? Just reemphasizing the numbers we've already been discussing and saying 'Dude, but it's 10^40! 10^40!!!'
Whammy, just saying the same thing over and over again, this is not a strong way of debating, my friend.
Also, please stop putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of doing it to you. I never said 10^40 is something 'likely to occur'. I'm
saying that without all the information, you can't just use a God in the Gaps argument to fill it in. Read my last post again, and try and
understand what I'm trying to say to you. You need to have all of the information before you make such assumptions that 10^40 possibility is
impossible, which, you have already admitted IS in fact possible.
Taking 10^40 and saying 'Well, that's close enough to impossible, so there's no way no how it could happen without God' is a rather ignorant
thought, especially when you don't have all of the information, as I tried to convey to you in my last post.
I never said "it exists therefore it has a cause".
Science is founded on the law of causation which is premise one.
Read the first premise over 3 times until the difference sinks in:
1."Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
2. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
3. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Do you deny that? Well you can throw out science then. Science is a search for causes.
Really...
If you're just going to use the
Kalam Cosmological Argument to try and win this
debate, at least you could just say so so that I know what you're going to be going back to. Might save us both some time.
I see your tact now. You are using your own wants and needs to fill in any gaps with God. So basically, what's happening is, instead of asking more
questions about what caused this or that, or how the universe began to exist (if it even technically has), you're just dropping all those questions
so you can say 'Well, must've been God'. This is the typical God in the Gaps argument. Now I know where Melatonin was coming from when he said
"logic free zone".
The second premise is "the universe began to exist". This the one atheists used to deny creation with until the evidence squashed their primitive
eternal universe beliefs. So do you deny that? Then you are stuck in a 19th century view of physics. Most people would call that primitive.
Wow, Whammy, you and your insults...pathetic.
And I can see that you failed to read the link I provided to you. Here, let my 'primitive' views show you one of the fastest growing theories in
the world today:
NARRATOR: Above all, they were still trying to solve the biggest problem of all: what caused the very start of the Big Bang, the singularity?
NEIL TUROK: Nobody has a solution for the singularity problem other than essentially by hand starting the Universe at a certain time and saying let's
go from there and let's not worry about what happened before and that's very unsatisfactory. This is the deepest problem in cosmology. If you can
get through the singularity you're on your way to a complete theory of the Universe.
NARRATOR: Most cosmologists have begun to think they might never find a solution. They'd almost given up completely, which is when Turok and his
colleagues heard Burt explain his idea properly for the first time. At a conference in Cambridge pioneers of M Theory had been brought together to
explore its implications. Burt was the star of the show. His vision of a violent eleventh dimension wowed the assembled physicists and caught the
attention of the cosmologists.
PAUL STEINHARDT: We heard about a vast variety of ideas. The ideas that struck both Neil and myself most strongly were the ideas that Burt
presented.
NARRATOR: On the last day of the conference Neil Turok, Paul Steinhardt and Burt decided to take time out. They went to see a play.
BURT OVRUT: We wanted to see the play Copenhagen which was being performed in London at the time and the three of us took the train down to London one
evening and we had whatever it was, an hour or so on the train to sit and talk about these ideas.
NARRATOR: On the journey they began to throw ideas around. Three physicists, one train, and the biggest secret about our Universe: what caused the Big
Bang.
PAUL STEINHARDT: I think people get the wrong impression about scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to step 2 to step 3.
What really happens that often you make some imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you capture the field at those stages it
looks like poetry in which you are imagining without yet proving.
NEIL TUROK: Paul, Burt and me were sitting together on the train and just free associating.
PAUL STEINHARDT: One of us, maybe it was me, began by saying oh well why can't we make a universe out of collision and Neil sort of pitching in and
saying well, if you did that then you could create all the matter and radiation of the Universe, so we had this conversation, one of us completing the
sentences of the other in which we kind of just, just let our imaginations go.
BURT OVRUT: And as we went along, at least I learned more and more about how it might be possible to have these brane collisions produce all of the
effects of the early Universe and in particular it's just easy to do with my hands, when they collide you might have a Big Bang.
NEIL TUROK: And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds.
NARRATOR: But how could such a collision go on to cause the world we know? The Universe we live in has vast clumps of matter we call stars and
galaxies.
BURT OVRUT: We know that things are not smooth out in the Universe. In fact we have little clumps, we have stars, we have galaxies, we have quasars,
we have clumps of matter.
NARRATOR: Now they had to explain how the collision of two parallel universes could go on to create these lumps of matter. Was there something about
the membranes, or branes, which could explain it?
NEIL TUROK: People tended to think of branes as being flat, perfect sheets, geometrical plains, but I think to us it was clear that that picture could
not be correct. It cannot be perfectly flat. It has to ripple.
PAUL STEINHARDT: What would happen as these branes approach that there are ripples in the surface of each brane and when they come together they
don't hit at exactly the same time, same place, but in fact they hit at different points and at different times.
BURT OVRUT: We found that as the brane moves it literally ripples, so when the collision takes place it imparts those ripples into real matter.
NARRATOR: The parallel universes move through the eleventh dimension like waves and like any wave these would ripple. It was the ripples which went on
to cause the clumps of matter after the Big Bang. They finally had their complete explanation of the birth of our Universe and now they could do
something even more profound. They could take the laws of physics back in time to the moment of the Big Bang and through to the other side.
NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial
singularity.
BURT OVRUT: You sort of go back and back and back until you get near the place where the expansion would have taken place and then it just sort of
changes into another world. When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of
mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.
NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.
Also, here's some good reading:
Top 10 Problems with the Big Bang
More Problems with the Big Bang
Now, since you seem to be stuck on this beginning to exist thing, here is a website to a man who wrote this book, perhaps YOU should read IT:
This book is also written by a man who explains very clearly how:
Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause.
Here is a website where you can see a brief summation of this discussion as well:
www.positiveatheism.org...
bigbert you are a smart enough guy it is just that as long as you deny God it will always be that way. So the solution to your problem is simple
enough. Stop denying the reality of God and your reason and logic problems will be solved.
Stop defaulting to God for anything yet unexplained, and YOUR problems might be solved.
Fair enough. I am not claiming this proves the Christian God specifically.
But a Supernatural (which you conceded) cause of the universe meets the broad definition of God pretty well.
Whammy, are you actually reading what I'm writing? You are STILL equating 'God' and 'supernatural', even AFTER I've covered that.
I have studied it. It is only the consensus amoung desperate materialists
WTF?!? Is this some kind of joke? You want to pretend that String Theory is only for 'desperate materialists'? Yep, Melatonin was DEFINITELY
right, a logic-free zone.
Perhaps you could read a bit more about String Theory before dismissing it as a means for 'desperate materialists'.
I kind of gave up on this forum and use it more as a place to
have a shouting contest (otherwise it would be too frustrating), so it's kind of nice. 
...
...
...
