[NeedKarma]

The evidence points to that conclusion. It is certainly a more realistic conclusion than that the comet is thinking on its own and making its own decisions what course to follow.

Well that pretty much settles the discussion for me if that's your argument to refute gravity. Personally I go with this: How does gravity work in space?

[De Maria]

Well that pretty much settles the discussion for me if that's your argument to refute gravity. Personally I go with this: How does gravity work in space?

I'm glad you feel the argument is settled for you.

However, I'd like to clarify, the law of gravity is more evidence which points to the existence of God. In this world, laws don't just happened. They are created by law givers to give order to our world.

Therefore, the law of gravity is evidence of a Supreme Lawgiver who decreed it to give order to the universe.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

The Supreme Lawgiver is of course the Great Flying Spagetti Monster (blessed be his meatball).

[Capuchin]

In this world, laws don't just happened.

Says what evidence? I'm interested.

[Curlyben]

The Supreme Lawgiver is of course the Great Flying Spagetti Monster (blessed be his meatball).

Scientists unravel galactic spaghetti monster | The Register

[jayxnderwood]

Good news

[Credendovidis]

Good. It seems as though you recognize that something or someone existed before the Big Bang. I agree that the evidence leads to that conclusion.

You know very well that I do NOT agree with that at all. So why suggest that?
Once again : we do not know IF anything exists outside our universe, not even IF there is an outside of our universe. For sure is that for everything and everyone within our universe there is no outside of our space time.

Now, if we continue on that line of thinking, we also see that every action has a cause. Therefore, that which existed before the Big Bang must have caused it.

So far your line of thinking was incorrect. Therefore continuing along that line is unlogical and wasting time. Your "every action has a cause" is a claim. Where is the OSE for that?

As always : you may make your reations as long as you want, but I limit my reaction. I have no need for verbal diarrhoea.

:rolleyes:

·

[Credendovidis]

Well that pretty much settles the discussion for me if that's your argument to refute gravity.

I'm glad you feel the argument is settled for you. However, I'd like to clarify, the law of gravity is more evidence which points to the existence of God. In this world, laws don't just happened. They are created by law givers to give order to our world. Therefore, the law of gravity is evidence of a Supreme Lawgiver who decreed it to give order to the universe.

1-Why would the law of gravity point to the existence of "God"? Please facts, not your beliefs.
2-Why don't "natural laws" just happen ? Please facts, not your beliefs.
3-What law-givers for "natural laws"? Please facts, not your beliefs.
4-Therefore the law of gravity... Therefore ? Please facts, not your beliefs.
5-... is evidence of a Supreme Lawgiver... What evidence? Please facts, not your beliefs.
6-... a Supreme Lawgiver who decreed it to... Where can I see OSE for that? Please facts, not your beliefs.
7-... to give order to the universe. There is a lot of disorder in the universe just as well.

:rolleyes:

·

[michealb]

So we have determined that the big bang was not caused by a god and that pockets of order can come from large portions of randomness.

Agreed

Sincerely,

De Maria

Excellent thread closed. Taking quotes out of order to prove a point is fun we should do this more often.

[De Maria]

Says what evidence? I'm interested.

The Constitution of the United States.

Now, show me an example of a law that just happened.

[De Maria]

You know very well that I do NOT agree with that at all. So why suggest that?

I didn't think so. But it was you who said,

The BB Theory does not state that there was no time nor space prior to the BB.

By inference then, the BB theory leaves the possibility that time and space existed prior to the BB. Since you are leaving that possibility open, then, there is the possibility that something or someone existed in that time and space. Which is a more logical possibility than that nothing existed prior.

Once again : we do not know IF anything exists outside our universe, not even IF there is an outside of our universe. For sure is that for everything and everyone within our universe there is no outside of our space time.

Of course we don't. But we aren't speaking about what we know. We are speculating with the evidence we have.

In this world, everything which has a beginning was created by something or someone. Therefore, since the universe had a beginning then it must have been created by something or someone. That is the logical inference we can make from the evidence.

Since we don't have any evidence that anything which had a beginning simply made itself. That means that your speculating that such could be the case is speculating against the evidence.

So far your line of thinking was incorrect. Therefore continuing along that line is unlogical and wasting time. Your "every action has a cause" is a claim. Where is the OSE for that?

So far I have validated my premises and followed sound lines of reason. And I've thus proven my logic sound and proven that your line of reasoning illogical.

As always : you may make your reations as long as you want, but I limit my reaction. I have no need for verbal diarrhoea.

But that seems all that comes from your keyboard.

:rolleyes:

·

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

Now, show me an example of a law that just happened.

Photosynthesis.

[Capuchin]

The Constitution of the United States.

Now, show me an example of a law that just happened.

Hahah, oh you had me there. I was thinking that this thread was serious. Good one.

[De Maria]

Photosynthesis.

Not so, that is in fact a thread that I was considering next. Photosynthesis is process in living creatures. These living creatures contain messages in their dna which tell them how to turn light into energy.

These messages had to come from an intelligent being. There is no message anywhere on earth that has been produced by anything other than an intelligent being. Therefore the evidence for photosynthesis again points to an intelligent Creator.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

Hahah, oh you had me there. I was thinking that this thread was serious. Good one.

Looks as though you and the other nonbelievers have exhausted your arguments in this thread. So, feel free to continue in this one. NeedKarma has just reminded me I wanted to start another thread.

Bye.

[Credendovidis]

... the BB theory leaves the possibility that time and space existed prior to the BB.

The BB Theory is not about that - nor says anything about that - possibility. Nor does it say anything about deities, about the dollar exchange rate, about global warming, about who is going to get elected the next President of the US, etc.
You try to couple things that have no relation what-so-ever, and present that as your "logical conclusive proof" (which it is not) for what ever you believe.
I am still waiting for your facts (i.e. Objective Supported Evidence), and not your beliefs.

Which is a more logical possibility than that nothing existed prior.

Why is that ? Please facts, not your beliefs.

But we aren't speaking about what we know. We are speculating with the evidence we have.

What evidence? All you so far stated is what you BELIEVE!!

In this world, everything which has a beginning was created by something or someone.

Repeating that does not make it a correct statement. Please facts, not your beliefs.

So far I have validated my premises and followed sound lines of reason.

No you did not. You posted what you BELIEVE and draw conclusions based on what you BELIEVE. Nowhere did you post any facts and OSE.

Sincerely, De Maria

I sincerely doubt that !

:rolleyes:

·

[NeedKarma]

These messages had to come from an intelligent being.

You keep repeating that in all contexts with no evidence in order to convince yourself. Saying it often doesn't make it so I'm afraid, it only makes one seem fanatical in their belief.

[michealb]

You can't debate someone's whose whole argument is god did it because even if you disprove that god did the new argument is god did it that way or that god put that evidence there to fool the non-believers.

It's very close to the "you can't argue with crazy" argument. The only thing you can do is out crazy them but sane and logical arguments don't work.

[Credendovidis]

All questions like this one (and like "The theory of Evolution proves the existence of God") seem to do is show the near total lack of mental and logical sanity of the questioner. From his side the questioner demands OSE for every word stated by any of his opponents, for every scientific find, for logical conclusions, for every Scientific Theory, for any format of support and reason, but in stark contrast he himself hides behind futile attempts to try to skip the FACT that he has not one single iota of OSE for his own point of view that is entirely based on unsupported religious claims and suggestions.

Understand me well : I am a great proponent of the human right to believe whatever one likes to believe. But that right does not allow the believer to demand OSE for anything stated by people with other beliefs and/or view point, while at the same time providing some mysterious and automatic right to the questioner to skip that same demand for his or her own belief or point of view.

Let's face it clearly and fairly : there never was - and there never will - be even the slightest format of OSE for the basics of any religion. Religion is based on assumptions, on (beyond any questioning) dogma, on BELIEF and nothing else.
To the theist that belief may feel as factual proof, but that is wrong : not by the slightest of margins there is any OSE for what he/she believes.

The essence of science is on explanations for observations, and on providing a basis for that by thesis that are tested and retested frequently by peer review and any other means, to always make sure that explanations are proven correct, also by new findings.
This in stark contrast to religious dogmas that are beyond any discussion. Always.

So unless creationists can come up with some actual OSE for their religious claims themselves, please feel free to suggest anything you like, but expect strong opposition from the scientific corner of the active member spectrum.

:>)

.

[JimGunther]

One theory not mentioned in the previous responses is the oscillating theory of the universe-that the big bang happens over and over as the universe expands to a certain point and then is pulled in by gravity to a point where it contracts and "bangs" again. Currently there does not appear to be enough matter in the universe for this to happen and the notion of "dark matter" is advanced to explain how there might be enough.

Personally, I don't think the universe can be explained without the presence of God. But the big bang certainly doesn't prove that there is a God-there are obviously other possibilities.