There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a red herring, I seem to recall that I started by responding to the 'if God made the universe, who made God comment' and this resulted in a 'turtles' response. So I pointed out that the 'turtles' response is no different from the multiverse response in that they both posit an infinite egress.

If you are responding to my response to someone's response to my response to someone who brought up the subject, it is not surprising that it is getting a little confusing

In regards to our conversation it was a red herring. As to the multiverse, though there is not any evidence for it yet I won't claim that looking for it is a waste of time. In physics reality often follows the math.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

We both agree reality exists. We disagree that god/s exist. Why do you think this is?

Well I think that is because you are an atheist and I am a theist. Seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. Is there a point to this.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is there a point to this.

I used to think there was.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe you are claiming that the brain is the source of consciousness. It logically follows that when the brain ceases to function, the consciousness ceases to exist? What evidence or logical reasoning shows that this is a correct statement of truth?

If you are going to reduce any/all conversation into 'philosophical absolutes', then we can just stop now.

If I should have to 'demonstrate' that consciousness manifests from the material brain, pain manifests from a nervous system, or how can we even be sure a rock truly has no feelings, then this will go nowhere; wouldn't you conquer?

Again, it is up to you to demonstrate that consciousness manifests outside the necessity of the material brain.

Can you?

 

[Paul.]

If I should have to 'demonstrate' that consciousness manifests from the material brain,

You provided it as an example of the material world. When you make a knowledge claim you should not be surprised if you are expected to demonstrate that claim.

pain manifests from a nervous system, or how can we even be sure a rock truly has no feelings, then this will go nowhere; wouldn't you conquer?

Nobody has asked you to demonstrate these things.

Again, it is up to you to demonstrate that consciousness manifests outside the necessity of the material brain.

You have made the knowledge claim and therefore you have the burden of proof. The person who requests the evidence for the knowledge claim does not need to have to demonstrate the opposite.

I started the process of demonstrating the existence of things that are immaterial and noticed that you have skipped addressing that in your reply. For your convenience, I will provide the start of the reasoning processing to allow you to disagree with any evidence or reasoning as it occurs. I started with providing the premise that:

All of the known physical (or material) existence, exists within the space time continuum (or universe.)

Do you have any issues with this statement?

 

[cvanwey]

You have made the knowledge claim and therefore you have the burden of proof. The person who requests the evidence for the knowledge claim does not need to have to demonstrate the opposite.

I agree. However, my knowledge claim is that consciousness manifests from the brain. I did not assert that this is the only means of originating consciousness. However, 'from the brain' is one way for which consciousness can manifest...

Do you agree? I would assume you might? Assuming you do, we can certainly move forward.

All of the known physical (or material) existence, exists within the space time continuum (or universe.)

Do you have any issues with this statement?

I thought I had already addressed this statement. If I have not, or did not provide my response to your satisfaction, please allow me to clarify or elaborate.

To my current knowledge, all 'physical' or 'material' existence exists within the space/time continuum, or 'universe.' But this seems like a formality to mention, or presents somewhat of a tautology of sorts...? To make such a statement, by the presented definitions alone, seems to suggest as such.

Furthermore, I do not know of any realm outside of this space/'universe'. As of yet, it's hard to classify 'universe'. Hence, it would be quite bold of me to assert, assume, or conclude anything outside this known realm? Wouldn't it?

 

[Paul.]

I agree. However, my knowledge claim is that consciousness manifests from the brain. I did not assert that this is the only means of originating consciousness. However, 'from the brain' is one way for which consciousness can manifest...

Do you agree? I would assume you might? Assuming you do, we can certainly move forward.

Before we start to go around the same circle, would you confirm what you mean when say consciousness?

I thought I had already addressed this statement. If I have not, or did not provide my response to your satisfaction, please allow me to clarify or elaborate.

To my current knowledge, all 'physical' or 'material' existence exists within the space/time continuum, or 'universe.' But this seems like a formality to mention, or presents somewhat of a tautology of sorts...? To make such a statement, by the presented definitions alone, seems to suggest as such.

Furthermore, I do not know of any realm outside of this space/'universe'. As of yet, it's hard to classify 'universe'. Hence, it would be quite bold of me to assert, assume, or conclude anything outside this known realm? Wouldn't it?

I am a little surprised that you said the universe is hard to classify. There are many definitions which all say basically the same thing. A good definition is:

The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.

Scientists in general seem to be happy with defining the universe this way and it provides no issue for me. They also agree that the universe started from a singularity and has expanded ever since the Big Bang to the point that the observable universe is now about 93 billion light years in diameter. I have no issues with this either. Do you accept these as observable facts about the universe or do you have an issue with them being correct?

 

[cvanwey]

Before we start to go around the same circle, would you confirm what you mean when say consciousness?

Seriously? You need even more elaboration?

I am a little surprised that you said the universe is hard to classify. There are many definitions which all say basically the same thing. A good definition is:

The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.

Scientists in general seem to be happy with defining the universe this way and it provides no issue for me. They also agree that the universe started from a singularity and has expanded ever since the Big Bang to the point that the observable universe is now about 93 billion light years in diameter. I have no issues with this either. Do you accept these as observable facts about the universe or do you have an issue with them being correct?

We are not sure the universe had a beginning?

 

[Paul.]

Seriously? You need even more elaboration?

With the discussion and examination of differing ideas, definitions are important. This helps to show us to the exact points at which our different viewpoints diverge. If I assume what you mean by the words you use, especially when we seem to find their outcomes very different, I would not be thinking logically.

We are not sure the universe had a beginning?

Who is we? You and Sean from the video?

If you understand the subject under discussion well enough, you will be able to present the ideas in your own words. For this reason I do not use links to information elsewhere to present my arguments and I do not consider links other people may post as a presentation of theirs. Please, use your own words to present your rebuttal.

 

[cvanwey]

With the discussion and examination of differing ideas, definitions are important. This helps to show us to the exact points at which our different viewpoints diverge. If I assume what you mean by the words you use, especially when we seem to find their outcomes very different, I would not be thinking logically.

As I stated prior, there is a reason I placed 'consciousness' into the spotlight. I already knew you were going to focus on, or polarize this term. I just beat you to the punch, and mentioned it first No, I'm not psychic. It's just that this is not my first rodeo.

And yes, we are likely going to 'diverge.' So, with all due respect, please just get on with it already. We have gone back and forth, and you have yet to present your case. Please present.

I won't bite Please 5h1t, or get off the pot. I have been patiently waiting since post #338, #340, etc....

Who is we? You and Sean from the video?

If you understand the subject under discussion well enough, you will be able to present the ideas in your own words. For this reason I do not use links to information elsewhere to present my arguments and I do not consider links other people may post as a presentation of theirs. Please, use your own words to present your rebuttal.

I'm not a physicist. He is. I figured it would be better if a physicist explained what terms they knock around. The point of the video, is to demonstrate that your assumption may be false. If the 'universe' is eternal, then your assertion about the universe 'starting from a singularity', would be incorrect.

 

[Paul.]

As I stated prior, there is a reason I placed 'consciousness' into the spotlight. I already knew you were going to focus on, or polarize this term. I just beat you to the punch, and mentioned it first No, I'm not psychic. It's just that this is not my first rodeo.

To assume that you know where a person is going to go before they even indicate it is not a logical conclusion and in this case was a wrong one. Arguments against materialism do not require the use of consciousness as part of the evidence, although you are correct in believing some people do use it as part of their reasoning. Just because I was not intending to bring consciousness into the discussion, did not mean I would let it come in under the radar. By mentioning it first as you stated, you placed upon yourself a burden of proof through via a knowledge claim as acknowledged in these quotes.

You have made the knowledge claim and therefore you have the burden of proof.

I agree. However, my knowledge claim is that consciousness manifests from the brain. I did not assert that this is the only means of originating consciousness. However, 'from the brain' is one way for which consciousness can manifest...

Since you have asserted that consciousness can manifest from the brain then you need shoulder this burden of proof that you have given yourself and show that it is a means of originating consciousness. Nobody is expecting you to show that it is the only means.

And yes, we are likely going to 'diverge.' So, with all due respect, please just get on with it already. We have gone back and forth, and you have yet to present your case. Please present.

Since I did not intend to present a case on conciseness being immaterial in order to prove the immaterial there is no case to present, only the case for the burden of proof you gave yourself and I have been asking for.

I won't bite Please 5h1t, or get off the pot. I have been patiently waiting since post #338, #340, etc....

You have not been waiting patiently. You have been trying to duck the burden of proof that you placed upon yourself. Since you do not want to shoulder this burden of proof, it appears that you put it upon yourself accidentally. Shifting that burden to me will not work. You have two options start to prove your knowledge claim or retract your knowledge claim. Either way I will be gracious, I won’t bite

I'm not a physicist. He is. I figured it would be better if a physicist explained what terms they knock around. The point of the video, is to demonstrate that your assumption may be false. If the 'universe' is eternal, then your assertion about the universe 'starting from a singularity', would be incorrect.

I am not a physicist either. In my experience, when someone posts a video of someone else explaining the argument during a discussion, it means the poster does not understand the argument well enough to explain it themselves but they still believe the argument. In that situation, since they do not understand their own argument they will not understand the rebuttal. In this situation that is not the case because you have posited a possible failure with the premise.

If the universe is eternal then it does not have a beginning. They are the only two options, the universe is eternal or the universe had a beginning. Is it possible to rule one of these options out? Yes it is. There are a number of reasons why the universe cannot be eternal:

1. If the universe is eternal you have an infinite number of yesterdays. You cannot traverse an infinite number of yesterdays from eternity past to get to today. Infinite is not possible in the real world only the theoretical.​
2. The universe is running out of usable energy and one day will experience heat death if nothing interferes with this process. If the universe is eternal then this heat death would have already occurred in the infinite past. The universe does not have infinite energy inside it.​
3. The idea of infinite Big bangs and then collapse only to bang again fails as the process would cause energy loss. You don’t have an infinite amount of energy inside of the universe to keep the process going.​
4. Radioactive decay shows that the radioactive elements are not eternally old. If they were they would have decayed completely and no longer be radioactive.​

Does this answer why the universe cannot be eternal? Any one of these reasons on its own, if true, is enough to confirm the universe must have had a beginning. Do you want to look at them further or move forward?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

1. If the universe is eternal you have an infinite number of yesterdays. You cannot traverse an infinite number of yesterdays from eternity past to get to today. Infinite is not possible in the real world only the theoretical.​

I'm happy to agree with the other points, but this one seems a bit lame. If there were an infinite past, then clearly there clearly would be an infinite number of yesterdays that happened. Also if Infinite is not possible in the real world, then the idea of an infinite God is not possible in the real world either.

Mathematically a lot of ideas have no 'real world' existence but nevertheless are vitally important to the way it functions, including zero, negative numbers and complex numbers. Infinity would be in that category too.

All you have to have is the concept that one of those 'yesterdays' was infinitely long and voila, you have an eternal past!

Now the other points you make tend to render that idea meaningless, but I would not be using infinity as proof that the universe is eternal.

 

[cvanwey]

To assume that you know where a person is going to go before they even indicate it is not a logical conclusion and in this case was a wrong one. Arguments against materialism do not require the use of consciousness as part of the evidence, although you are correct in believing some people do use it as part of their reasoning. Just because I was not intending to bring consciousness into the discussion, did not mean I would let it come in under the radar. By mentioning it first as you stated, you placed upon yourself a burden of proof through via a knowledge claim as acknowledged in these quotes.

I continue to 'assume', until you demonstrate otherwise. In post #338, I also stated within the same sentence "this includes photons, quarks, etc." Interesting how you are not concerned with any of these, but want to continue quibbling over 'consciousness'?

And like I asked you prior, do you disagree that consciousness can manifest from the brain? If you do, then I guess we can explore?.?. Otherwise, keep it moving forward.

Since you have asserted that consciousness can manifest from the brain then you need shoulder this burden of proof that you have given yourself and show that it is a means of originating consciousness. Nobody is expecting you to show that it is the only means.

Please see above.

Since I did not intend to present a case on conciseness being immaterial in order to prove the immaterial there is no case to present, only the case for the burden of proof you gave yourself and I have been asking for.

Please see above.

You have not been waiting patiently. You have been trying to duck the burden of proof that you placed upon yourself. Since you do not want to shoulder this burden of proof, it appears that you put it upon yourself accidentally. Shifting that burden to me will not work. You have two options start to prove your knowledge claim or retract your knowledge claim. Either way I will be gracious, I won’t bite

Please re-read posts #338, #340, etc., and please also see above.

I am not a physicist either.

Then you should not find it rude or illogical to completely ignore your own blank assertions below

Unlike theists, scientists hardly go out into the public arena, asserting "truths." The point of the video was to demonstrate scientists are still kicking around terms/theories/ideas/models/other.

Since you have not provided direct quotes or evidence, from actual accredited physicists, whom care to go on record about their absolute findings, then I guess it would not be irrational for me to just completely ignore all your provided blank assumptions/assertions below

But let's see what else you've wrote, for goofs anyways...

In my experience, when someone posts a video of someone else explaining the argument during a discussion, it means the poster does not understand the argument well enough to explain it themselves but they still believe the argument. In that situation, since they do not understand their own argument they will not understand the rebuttal.

In post #337, you stated, "I have read a number of your posts". Which means you would know I do posit (some) videos; here and there. But when (I) do, it is more-so to avoid a complete text wall, or, to present what I also think about a subject matter - (in video format). But doing so more in the interest of cutting the monotony of black and white text alone. Or in my case, blue

If the universe is eternal then it does not have a beginning. They are the only two options, the universe is eternal or the universe had a beginning. Is it possible to rule one of these options out? Yes it is. There are a number of reasons why the universe cannot be eternal:

Accredited physicists will go on record that the universe CANNOT be eternal, and provide substantiated evidence? Do tell?

If the universe is eternal you have an infinite number of yesterdays. You cannot traverse an infinite number of yesterdays from eternity past to get to today. Infinite is not possible in the real world only the theoretical.

I'll await your response to @Silly Uncle Wayne here, before I may or may not decide to add my two cents.

The universe is running out of usable energy and one day will experience heat death if nothing interferes with this process. If the universe is eternal then this heat death would have already occurred in the infinite past. The universe does not have infinite energy inside it.

Source please?

The idea of infinite Big bangs and then collapse only to bang again fails as the process would cause energy loss. You don’t have an infinite amount of energy inside of the universe to keep the process going.

Source please?

Radioactive decay shows that the radioactive elements are not eternally old. If they were they would have decayed completely and no longer be radioactive.

Source please?

Does this answer why the universe cannot be eternal? Any one of these reasons on its own, if true, is enough to confirm the universe must have had a beginning.

Well, IS it true? Do you understand what I stated prior? We do NOT know IF the universe is eternal or not. And here's a bold statement to bring forth....

If the 'universe' is eternal, then there goes your 'creation' hypothesis. If the universe is not eternal, then all available theistic/deistic/atheistic/other claims/arguments still remain on the table, just the same as before we dove into this subject - (for which neither of us are admitted experts)

Do you want to look at them further or move forward?

You tell me?

 

[Paul.]

I continue to 'assume', until you demonstrate otherwise. In post #338, I also stated within the same sentence "this includes photons, quarks, etc." Interesting how you are not concerned with any of these, but want to continue quibbling over 'consciousness'?

At this point I do not have enough evidence to confirm that consciousness manifests from the brain. I have never considered that photons or quarks were not part of the material universe. They have been discovered via scientific means so I have not had to consider them as being immaterial. If you have any evidence that they are immaterial, I would love to hear it.

And like I asked you prior, do you disagree that consciousness can manifest from the brain? If you do, then I guess we can explore?.?. Otherwise, keep it moving forward.

I'm not declaring an assertion that consciousness could not manifest from the brain, I have not seen demonstration that it does manifest from the brain. So I am not disagreeing is the sense of stating, it cannot. I am disagreeing in the sense that I cannot agree because I have not had the evidence demonstrated to show that it can. There are a number of ways to view the brain, conciseness and how they relate to one another. Consciousness manifesting from the brain as a source of consciousness could be possible but I cannot allow it to be accepted as being true without the demonstration that it is so. You have the burden of proof, so you can explore away.

Please re-read posts #338, #340, etc., and please also see above.

We could disagree on this point again but that would get not get us anywhere.

I'll await your response to @Silly Uncle Wayne here, before I may or may not decide to add my two cents.

Source please?

Source please?

Source please?

Well, IS it true? Do you understand what I stated prior? We do NOT know IF the universe is eternal or not. And here's a bold statement to bring forth....

If the 'universe' is eternal, then there goes your 'creation' hypothesis. If the universe is not eternal, then all available theistic/deistic/atheistic/other claims/arguments still remain on the table, just the same as before we dove into this subject - (for which neither of us are admitted experts)

You are correct in stating that if the universe is eternal or not, it does not remove any objections to other issues. Since we are here, I will continue. I did not respond to @Silly Uncle Wayne as this forum is not for apologetics debates between Christians but since you would like to accept his objections as valid I will quote and respond to them in this post. You can then provide further objections if needed. When you wish to move to the next point we can. We can proceed through each of the other three points, point by point. I will provide the requested source information and discuss any objections. When you wish to move to the next point we can. That being said, I will start with the objections to the impossibility of an eternal universe.

I'm happy to agree with the other points, but this one seems a bit lame. If there were an infinite past, then clearly there clearly would be an infinite number of yesterdays that happened.

The question of an infinite past is the point that is up for debate. An infinite past has not been agreed upon and this point pertains to the idea of an infinite past being an illogical one by being impossible.

Also if Infinite is not possible in the real world, then the idea of an infinite God is not possible in the real world either.

If an infinite God existed completely within a finite universe then it would not be possible for God to be infinite. The Christian God is not limited the physical universe that humans live in so there is no problem.

Mathematically a lot of ideas have no 'real world' existence but nevertheless are vitally important to the way it functions, including zero, negative numbers and complex numbers. Infinity would be in that category too.

If they are vitally important to the way it functions then do they exist in the real world? The answer must be yes since they cannot be removed from its functionality. Nevertheless none all of the examples provided have a real world existence even in our own lives. Numbers are the representation of quantity. Zero represents the quantity of Ferrari’s and Porsches I own. When you go to the bank your account may have a balance of zero which represents the quantity of dollars the bank is required to give you if you want to make a withdrawal. An overdraft at the bank fluctuates between a positive and negative balance. A positive number is the quantity of dollars owned by the customer and a negative number is the quantity of dollars owed by the customer. Complex numbers are used in Fourier transforms and quite frankly my care for complex numbers ends there. If it is used in the real world then it exists in reality. Infinity does not exist in this category because you cannot have actual infinite in finite reality.

All you have to have is the concept that one of those 'yesterdays' was infinitely long and voila, you have an eternal past!

Yesterday is a measurement of time. An infinite yesterday has an infinite number of hours which is the same problem. The point of infinite yesterdays is that you cannot have an infinite amount of time (measured by whatever unit of measurement of time you which to measure by) and traverse from an infinite past to today because you cannot get from today to the infinite past because you will never get there because it is infinite (without end) and the same works when coming from the infinite past to today. If the past is infinite then we could never get to today. Since we are at today, the past cannot be infinite.

Your two cents?

 

[cvanwey]

At this point I do not have enough evidence to confirm that consciousness manifests from the brain. I have never considered that photons or quarks were not part of the material universe. They have been discovered via scientific means so I have not had to consider them as being immaterial. If you have any evidence that they are immaterial, I would love to hear it.

I'm not declaring an assertion that consciousness could not manifest from the brain, I have not seen demonstration that it does manifest from the brain. So I am not disagreeing is the sense of stating, it cannot. I am disagreeing in the sense that I cannot agree because I have not had the evidence demonstrated to show that it can. There are a number of ways to view the brain, conciseness and how they relate to one another. Consciousness manifesting from the brain as a source of consciousness could be possible but I cannot allow it to be accepted as being true without the demonstration that it is so. You have the burden of proof, so you can explore away.

We could disagree on this point again but that would get not get us anywhere.

You are correct in stating that if the universe is eternal or not, it does not remove any objections to other issues. Since we are here, I will continue. I did not respond to @Silly Uncle Wayne as this forum is not for apologetics debates between Christians but since you would like to accept his objections as valid I will quote and respond to them in this post. You can then provide further objections if needed. When you wish to move to the next point we can. We can proceed through each of the other three points, point by point. I will provide the requested source information and discuss any objections. When you wish to move to the next point we can. That being said, I will start with the objections to the impossibility of an eternal universe.

The question of an infinite past is the point that is up for debate. An infinite past has not been agreed upon and this point pertains to the idea of an infinite past being an illogical one by being impossible.

If an infinite God existed completely within a finite universe then it would not be possible for God to be infinite. The Christian God is not limited the physical universe that humans live in so there is no problem.

If they are vitally important to the way it functions then do they exist in the real world? The answer must be yes since they cannot be removed from its functionality. Nevertheless none all of the examples provided have a real world existence even in our own lives. Numbers are the representation of quantity. Zero represents the quantity of Ferrari’s and Porsches I own. When you go to the bank your account may have a balance of zero which represents the quantity of dollars the bank is required to give you if you want to make a withdrawal. An overdraft at the bank fluctuates between a positive and negative balance. A positive number is the quantity of dollars owned by the customer and a negative number is the quantity of dollars owed by the customer. Complex numbers are used in Fourier transforms and quite frankly my care for complex numbers ends there. If it is used in the real world then it exists in reality. Infinity does not exist in this category because you cannot have actual infinite in finite reality.

Yesterday is a measurement of time. An infinite yesterday has an infinite number of hours which is the same problem. The point of infinite yesterdays is that you cannot have an infinite amount of time (measured by whatever unit of measurement of time you which to measure by) and traverse from an infinite past to today because you cannot get from today to the infinite past because you will never get there because it is infinite (without end) and the same works when coming from the infinite past to today. If the past is infinite then we could never get to today. Since we are at today, the past cannot be infinite.

Your two cents?

My two cents?

Read the title of the thread. Then please understand the basic definition of 'atheism' - a lack of belief in god or gods. And then read title of the thread again:

'There is no logical argument to support a (lack of belief in god or gods)"

This thread is becoming increasingly painful to continue engaging, and is going backwards, or weirdly sideways. Please cut to the chase.... I'm laying down the gauntlet, again. Post #340 (answer it, or please move on elsewhere):

Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?

 

[Paul.]

My two cents?

Making a statement with a question mark denotes surprise at the comment. I am confused as to why you would be surprised since you did say you might add your two cents about my response to objections mentioned by @Silly Uncle Wayne. To save you the trouble of looking for it, I will quote it here.

I'll await your response to @Silly Uncle Wayne here, before I may or may not decide to add my two cents.

I see that you have decided not to add your two cents to the responses to the objections. Does that mean you can find no fault with the logic or reasoning?

Read the title of the thread. Then please understand the basic definition of 'atheism' - a lack of belief in god or gods. And then read title of the thread again:

'There is no logical argument to support a (lack of belief in god or gods)"

With the amount of evidence for the existence of God being beyond reasonable doubt, I would have to say that the statement “There is no reasonable argument to support a lack of belief in God” is true, but how is relevant to our discussion?

This thread is becoming increasingly painful to continue engaging, and is going backwards, or weirdly sideways. Please cut to the chase.... I'm laying down the gauntlet, again. Post #340 (answer it, or please move on elsewhere):

Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?

You seem to be under the wrong understanding of how a logical argument works. Let me help you with that. A logical argument reasons from one or more premises to a conclusion. Since we are part was through showing the reasoning from the premise to the point that shows the universe is not eternal we are part way to the conclusion. Let me skip to the end for you. The existence of a finite universe makes the existence of the immaterial a logically inescapable conclusion thereby demonstrating that materialism is not a correct worldview. This could also be demonstrated by the fact that the universe is expanding, was small in the past and is very large now.

 

[cvanwey]

Making a statement with a question mark denotes surprise at the comment. I am confused as to why you would be surprised since you did say you might add your two cents about my response to objections mentioned by @Silly Uncle Wayne. To save you the trouble of looking for it, I will quote it here.

I see that you have decided not to add your two cents to the responses to the objections. Does that mean you can find no fault with the logic or reasoning?

You do seem a bit confused. Note I stated 'may or may not'. It depends on how you answer. You provided no sources for all your assumptions. Please remember, you admitted you are not an expert in this field. Neither am I. Please also note why I initially provided the video. -- To demonstrate that relevant scientists, in this particular field, are kicking around models, ideas, concepts, etc. It is not concluded. Please also note what I stated prior. "Unlike theists, scientists hardly go out into the public arena, asserting "truths."

You seem to want to assert a conclusion, for which looks to only be mere speculation??? And I can only wonder why?

I find it interesting that you have made a forgone conclusion about a phenomenon for which you have both admitted that you are not an expert, but as well as failing to acknowledge that not even the relevant experts in the field have concluded.

Like I stated prior, for which you might have also already acknowledged... "If the 'universe' is eternal, then there goes your 'creation' hypothesis."

Why not just let the scientists continue their research into this deep and vast matter, and stop asserting conclusions, for which you are not an expert. I asked for sources, you failed to provide any. If a scientist(s) have resolved this matter, then I guess you can show me their Nobel prize, for starters?

Again, I'm not an expert in cosmology, physics, or any other relevant scientific endeavor. But it does not take an expert to surmise that the experts are not concluded on this topic.

Hence, the reason I provided the 9 minute video. He is a well known scientist, in the public arena. He would commit social and career suicide, to state many of the things he said, if they did not hold merit And to my knowledge, since the casting of the provided video, I don't recall an absolute conclusion being drawn still, as of yet?

So, like I said prior, 'source please'.

With the amount of evidence for the existence of God being beyond reasonable doubt, I would have to say that the statement “There is no reasonable argument to support a lack of belief in God” is true,

Okay, you just asserted a 'truth', which I guess is close enough to one of my initial requests. Now which 'argument(s)' are you going to bring forth to substantiate this 'truth'?

but how is relevant to our discussion?

Please see above.

You seem to be under the wrong understanding of how a logical argument works.

Um, you provided assertions without sources. I then asked for sources. You provided none. You are not an expert in the field. Why should I assume you know more about cosmology than Sean Carroll? Mr. Carroll states we don't know yet. Why not reconcile this current finding, and be patient?

Let me help you with that. A logical argument reasons from one or more premises to a conclusion. Since we are part was through showing the reasoning from the premise to the point that shows the universe is not eternal we are part way to the conclusion. Let me skip to the end for you. The existence of a finite universe makes the existence of the immaterial a logically inescapable conclusion thereby demonstrating that materialism is not a correct worldview. This could also be demonstrated by the fact that the universe is expanding, was small in the past and is very large now.

LOL. Please watch the video again. Or, please get a degree in the relevant field of study, formulate your findings, get them peer reviewed, and await your Nobel prize.

 

[Paul.]

You do seem a bit confused. Note I stated 'may or may not'. It depends on how you answer. You provided no sources for all your assumptions. Please remember, you admitted you are not an expert in this field. Neither am I. Please also note why I initially provided the video. -- To demonstrate that relevant scientists, in this particular field, are kicking around models, ideas, concepts, etc. It is not concluded. Please also note what I stated prior. "Unlike theists, scientists hardly go out into the public arena, asserting "truths."

You seem to want to assert a conclusion, for which looks to only be mere speculation??? And I can only wonder why?

I find it interesting that you have made a forgone conclusion about a phenomenon for which you have both admitted that you are not an expert, but as well as failing to acknowledge that not even the relevant experts in the field have concluded.

Like I stated prior, for which you might have also already acknowledged... "If the 'universe' is eternal, then there goes your 'creation' hypothesis."

Why not just let the scientists continue their research into this deep and vast matter, and stop asserting conclusions, for which you are not an expert. I asked for sources, you failed to provide any. If a scientist(s) have resolved this matter, then I guess you can show me their Nobel prize, for starters?

Again, I'm not an expert in cosmology, physics, or any other relevant scientific endeavor. But it does not take an expert to surmise that the experts are not concluded on this topic.

Hence, the reason I provided the 9 minute video. He is a well known scientist, in the public arena. He would commit social and career suicide, to state many of the things he said, if they did not hold merit And to my knowledge, since the casting of the provided video, I don't recall an absolute conclusion being drawn still, as of yet?

So, like I said prior, 'source please'.

Unfortunately you are mistaken. As I stated previously, I will go through each of the four reasons that show that the universe is not eternal, one by one. The first reason is a logical argument only and the last three include science. I have shown that the objections to the logical reason for the beginning of the universe are illogical and therefore logically the universe cannot be eternal. If you have no further objections to the logical reasons the universe cannot be eternal then I will move onto the second reason which includes science. I will then provide details of the second reason and at least one source. Don’t worry; it does not require a physics degree to understand the science or the logic.

Can I move onto the first scientific reason the universe is not eternal or do you still have objections to the logical reason?

Okay, you just asserted a 'truth', which I guess is close enough to one of my initial requests. Now which 'argument(s)' are you going to bring forth to substantiate this 'truth'?

Please see above.

I will start a cumulative case that will show the universe is not eternal; the immaterial exists and then continues logically to where we see that God exists. We are already part way towards showing the existence of the immaterial so I guess I don’t need to deviate from the direction this discussion is heading.

Um, you provided assertions without sources. I then asked for sources. You provided none. You are not an expert in the field. Why should I assume you know more about cosmology than Sean Carroll? Mr. Carroll states we don't know yet. Why not reconcile this current finding, and be patient?

LOL. Please watch the video again. Or, please get a degree in the relevant field of study, formulate your findings, get them peer reviewed, and await your Nobel prize.

I have seen a number of Sean Carroll video’s and other material on his beliefs. The problem with Sean Carroll’s position is logical errors that cause incorrect conclusions. I do not need to have a degree in cosmology to spot an error in the reasoning of his worldview.

 

[cvanwey]

Unfortunately you are mistaken. As I stated previously, I will go through each of the four reasons that show that the universe is not eternal, one by one.

How about we instead just read what scientists have to say on the matter, using sources, and not your admitted uneducated and unsubstantiated assertions, regarding a foregone conclusion, while still not yet sighting any sources:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

The Big Bounce: Why our universe might be eternal

The correct answer is.... Scientists do not know yet. Again, if the universe is eternal, then to assert a creator would seem ridiculous. If it should happen to turn out that the universe had a true beginning, then every assertion is still on the table - (god/no god/multiple gods/other).

The first reason is a logical argument only and the last three include science. I have shown that the objections to the logical reason for the beginning of the universe are illogical and therefore logically the universe cannot be eternal. If you have no further objections to the logical reasons the universe cannot be eternal then I will move onto the second reason which includes science. I will then provide details of the second reason and at least one source. Don’t worry; it does not require a physics degree to understand the science or the logic.

Please see above

Can I move onto the first scientific reason the universe is not eternal or do you still have objections to the logical reason?

I'm sure you can actually find credible sources, with scientists proposing working ideas, models, and/or 'theories', which suggest the universe had a true beginning. But you haven't even done this yet. So once you provide sources, we will then be on the same playing field. Meaning this 'theory' vs that 'theory'. Neither of which side have been concluded

But I again have to ask...

You seem rather ambitious to assert that the universe is not eternal. And I wonder why? Where-as I openly admit, if the universe should happen to be finite, it really changes nothing. All your work is still ahead of you.

I will start a cumulative case that will show the universe is not eternal; the immaterial exists and then continues logically to where we see that God exists. We are already part way towards showing the existence of the immaterial so I guess I don’t need to deviate from the direction this discussion is heading.

Please see above.

I have seen a number of Sean Carroll video’s and other material on his beliefs. The problem with Sean Carroll’s position is logical errors that cause incorrect conclusions. I do not need to have a degree in cosmology to spot an error in the reasoning of his worldview.

Great. Maybe you should contact him and have a 'go-around' or formal debate about it Let me know, so I can buy tickets.

 

[Paul.]

How about we instead just read what scientists have to say on the matter, using sources, and not your admitted uneducated and unsubstantiated assertions, regarding a foregone conclusion, while still not yet sighting any sources:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time

The Big Bounce: Why our universe might be eternal

The correct answer is.... Scientists do not know yet. Again, if the universe is eternal, then to assert a creator would seem ridiculous. If it should happen to turn out that the universe had a true beginning, then every assertion is still on the table - (god/no god/multiple gods/other).

Please see above

I'm sure you can actually find credible sources, with scientists proposing working ideas, models, and/or 'theories', which suggest the universe had a true beginning. But you haven't even done this yet. So once you provide sources, we will then be on the same playing field. Meaning this 'theory' vs that 'theory'. Neither of which side have been concluded

But I again have to ask...

You seem rather ambitious to assert that the universe is not eternal. And I wonder why? Where-as I openly admit, if the universe should happen to be finite, it really changes nothing. All your work is still ahead of you.

Please see above.

Before we get into all that I am having to clarification on your position on the first reason which is from logic alone. If you know of any objections in the logic or reasoning, then please state them. If you can find no errors in logic or reason but would like to reverse the right to try again later, please confirm this. Clarity in logic and reasoning is import because it provides the basis of evaluating any arguments or evidence. Please clearly provide your position so that we can move forward.

Great. Maybe you should contact him and have a 'go-around' or formal debate about it Let me know, so I can buy tickets.

I have watched a debate between him and William Lane Craig. I was not impressed, especially with an error in logical reasoning produced in the closing statement, or was it the questions, I can’t remember exactly which.