the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science today has no clue what the universe was like prior to the Fall.

Not a clue.

Even entropy as it's known today didn't exist.

And the earth was one tropical paradise.

That is a claim.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah well the earth was still a sphere long before it was proven. Ignorance of truth doesn’t negate truth.

And that does nothing to support the claim that the conditions of the universe were any different in the past than they were today.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a claim.

So is cosmic evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So is cosmic evolution.

There's more evidence for cosmic evolution than there is for your claim that the universe had vastly different conditions in the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that does nothing to support the claim that the conditions of the universe were any different in the past than they were today.

The old "past is key to the present" idea; that opens doors to all sorts of junk history.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's more evidence for cosmic evolution than there is for your claim that the universe had vastly different conditions in the past.

Only on paper.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The old "past is key to the present" idea; that opens doors to all sorts of junk history.

And yet there's never been a single shred of... anything, that shows that the conditions of the universe haven't been vastly different in the past is wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Only on paper.

You're going to run out of paper at this rate.

But I'll reply with my standard reply: so you claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet there's never been a single shred of... anything, that shows that the conditions of the universe haven't been vastly different in the past is wrong.

Looks like science is SOL* then.

* Short On Learning

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Looks like science is SOL* then.

* Short On Learning

Or maybe... there is actually not a thing that shows that the universal conditions were vastly different in the past?

So you're Short On Luck then. And Short On Learning too.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're going to run out of paper at this rate.

It's not my treeware that's being used up.

It's science's ever-changing paradigms that's causing a tree shortage.

Yesterday's science:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not my treeware that's being used up.

It's science's ever-changing paradigms that's causing a tree shortage.

Yesterday's science:

View attachment 355338

So you claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or maybe... there is actually not a thing that shows that the universal conditions were vastly different in the past?

Keep looking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Keep looking.

Scientists are. They ain't found nothing yet.

 

[Astrid]

Whichever unconscious mechanism you envision as the cause of the universe would just do that what it would do by default, namely create the universe... But with the uncaused cause being eternally self-existent, it would have created the universe an eternity ago, thereby running into the problems of an eternal universe.

Therefore the uncaused cause has to be conscious because only then it could decide to create the universe at any given time while itself being eternally self-existent.

Also if consciousness would be the result of mere chemical processes it would have no meaning. Our thoughts and feelings wouldn’t have any objective meaning, which would lead to the conclusion that nothing has any meaning.

I believe this conclusion is one of the causes of the existential crises we see many people struggling with nowadays because every human knows deep inside that our live do have an intrinsic purpose.

I heard too that everyone deep inside knows there is a god.

Thst is NOT a fact. It’s an opinion.
O reference, no data, does not belong in phys sci forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists are. They ain't found nothing yet.

Like they would even know what to look for.

I've asked this many times here:

What would they look for?

Ion trails? Plasma clouds? Time crystals? Microwave background? what exactly?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thst is NOT a fact. It’s an opinion.

What kind of evidence would take it out of the opinion category, and place it into the fact category?

Or does anyone know?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like they would even know what to look for.

I've asked this many times here:

What would they look for?

Ion trails? Plasma clouds? Time crystals? Microwave background? what exactly?

The million dollar question: what would they look for to see that the universal conditions were vastly different in the past?

If you can't provide an answer, then don't blame others for ignoring what you say and passing it off as nonsense.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which is a claim only and is not something that can be backed up actual evidence. We also have no reason to think nor assume that the conditions in the universe were as vastly different as BNR32FAN and others claim it to be.

So what the Bible says about the age of the earth isn’t evidence? Well I certainly hope that science is able to find evidence that Jesus died for your sins my friend before it’s too late.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So what the Bible says about the age of the earth isn’t evidence? Well I certainly hope that science is able to find evidence that Jesus died for your sins my friend before it’s too late.

Buddy, I do not need science for matters of faith. You're asking questions that are squarely in the realm of science, and you keep wanting it to play by your rules.
The Bible is not a textbook, or a science book, or a history book. It is a book on faith, which was written over 2000 years ago by ancient Jews and then amended by the Roman-era Early Christians. The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
And I am so very sorry that I don't ascribe to the outlandish and frankly insipid view from certain sects of American Christians that I have to hold 100% literally and infallibly to what the Bible says, even though the early church founders and thinkers didn't hold the same views and they lived much closer to Christ's time than you and your ilk do. And yes, I am 100% being facetious here.