We do not know in the sense of having empirical proofs. But we can come to valid and reasonable conclusions, based on philosophy, and reason.
Can we now? Do enlighten us?
Do you agree that everything that begins to exist, needs a cause ?
Nothing beings to exist [i]ex nihlo[/i]. We have but changes in (existing) matter.
is it fallacious, to put " something " in the gap, not calling it God ?
Depends on what you propose actually.
Or do you think, our universe could have pop out of absolutely nothing ? would that hypotheses be reasonable to you ?
I truly don't know.
how about remain on track, and attack my arguments, if you think you have better answers, and not attack me ? how do you know i am clueless about these subjects, if i have not even exposed what i believe?
I have been attacking your "arguments" even those you disingenuously deny. Your words betray you are clueless.
then i understand you are waisting your time here ?
Not at all. I am having a ball.
please show where i said that.
Do you actually deny that here and now? Please do so now in so many words.
no shiften burden of proof. i have not made any claim so far. just ask the participants to expose their thinking. that seems really hard .......
Not at all. What is really hard is your understanding of how people answer you. That they do not in the exact way you want and need them to is where your biggest problem lies. Pay attention to what they actually say to you and you’ll get a little further.
Why is it not special pleading, to argue the universe might be eternal, but God is ?
Has it occurred to you that nobody on this forum is under the least obligation to accept your unilateral terms of debate? You seem to believe that you can dictate a rule whereby everybody who participates has to take a stand except yourself. What aggravates it is that this thread is based on the false premise that we have to disprove something. Why do you find this so difficult to understand? How about changing the rule so that you would first explain your own position before canvassing ours? If you don’t like it, you don’t have to participate.
Not really. Read the cited passage again. Evaluate it against the sum total of the mostly nonsense you have posted here so far. Your invocation of Gödel’s Theorem (which one, please?) again shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Similarly, your inability to comprehend undemanding arguments about many other things is now a cold, hard fact, and no longer an assumption.
No, I attack your feebleminded attempts at subverting the usual rules of argumentation. Besides, your question has been answered – amply, and from several different standpoints. Still you carry on just like a creationist instead of at least trying earnestly to digest what has been put before you.
Yesterday at 19:54:47 in Reply #26 when you wrote, “ no video, or link…i wont spend my time on it. just post it here, resumed.”
Sheesh, more defective cogitation. Do you understand that I am not saying that abiogenesis, evolution and/or the Big Bang have been falsified? You definitively claimed that the Big Bang and (macro)evolution (meaning, presumably, speciation) are not falsifiable. That is not true. Both are falsifiable. The kind of evidence that would falsify each of them has been put to you. Now you prattle on mindlessly about “present[ing] falsifiable, empirical evidence.” You also appear not to understand that scientific theories are falsifiable by evidence. Scientific evidence itself isn’t falsifiable unless it’s been made up, and then only by other evidence.
Nobody but you is claiming that that is the scientific position. And do yourself a favour and get properly familiar with the epistemological and methodological foundations of the scientific enterprise before advertising your ignorance in these matters with a wholly inapplicable tu quoque fallacy.
I can then use your argument against me as the template of my argument against you. Thank you.
God is used as an argument, that our universe could have come into existence out of nothing. Gods, however, do not arise out of absolutely nothing. The argument is therefore pointless.
It does not occur to me why “god” would be needed to do so. Do you think the concept of “god” is needed? If so, why? Else - no need to multiply the entities in one’s understanding for no reason, not so?
Might I suggest a dose of valium. Tantrums are not really appreciated here, capisce.
Maybe you should have a banana. I was thinking the other day about bananas. I’m not really sure if I am a fan of them. I do like them almost green. But if they are yellow they are way too mushy, and taste like they are starting to ferment. Then they start growing black spots and Cookie chops them up into custard for pud. I am always suspicious of bananas in custard - you sometimes wonder if Cookie bought them on the cheap as over-ripe, past their sell-by dates and so on. I’m sure they use old mushy ones to make banana bread too. Contemplate the banana and you might gain insight into our existence. Or not. What would others think?
Sticking to the topic though, I have heard it said that in the days before loo-paper, banana skins would suffice. Afterwards, if you left it lying around, you might save yourself from a sabre-tooth attack when the cat slips on it and brains itself. Think of all the goodly design that went in to creating the banana. Apples, on the other hand, are the fruit of the devil, they say. Not sure why they say it, but be that as it may.
it does not matter, where i got the information from. What matters, is that secular scientists do affirm the universe had most probably a beginning.
Or do you think, our universe could have pop out of absolutely nothing ? would that hypotheses be reasonable to you ?
I truly don't know.
( sic…)
are you sure ?
you may think about it. Absolutely nothing is the absence of ANY thing, and cannot be the cause of something. Ever. Why do atheists have a hard time to grasp such a elementary and obvious fact ?
I have been attacking your "arguments"
nope. you have attacked me, and argued, i do not know what i am talking about. you are being dishonest.
Well, you don’t. Fez feh, as they used to say on the playground.
Back to the topic. One thing I really like about bananas is their use in a banana split. All that lovely soft-serve yum yum. One could even toss the stupid banana and drench the rest in nuts and choccie sauce.
I suppose old Jahazebel will start attacking evolution sometime soon, so let me help him along. If evolution were true, why don’t we have croconanas? Take THAT, Darwinists!
There is a lot of speculation about the shape of the universe, rwenzori. Any possibility of it being banana shaped? That would certainly explain why sunsets are yellow.
Yes, that’s it! Curved spacetime – it fits perfectly into the Creator’s hand. And it ties in with the quantum chromodynamics of yellow. Now that the mystery’s been solved, it shall be known as the Jah-as-peel Theory.
