What caused the Universe?

[victorinus]

And so it goes...

name one

 

[victorinus]

A number of reasonable potential explanations have been suggested,

name one

 

[Radrook]

What I'm saying is that suggestions of the kind you mentioned are not serious 'suspicions', but simply fanciful speculation, or thought experiment, with no scientific basis beyond the holographic principle itself.

Well the same argument can be made concerning abiogenesis conjectures and that doesn't seem to cause any atheist problems whatsoever. Care to explain why that is?

IMHO this concept has far more basis in reality than the abiogenesis idea has since the abiogenesis idea hasn't been observed to occur in nature and can't be forced to happen in a laboratory. Yet people show absolutely no qualms in accepting it as almost irrefutable fact. Strange in a rather obvious sort of way!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't work.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

You pick the wrong object of your faith, and this principle applies:

Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
Luke 11:24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
Luke 11:25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
Luke 11:26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

AV, I was talking about the nonsense that was in the post that I responded to. This is totally unrelated. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-and-
you prefer not to have any reasonable explanation

No, I was simply pointing out how unreasonable that explanation was. How the universe began is still being studied but so far no need for a god of any sort has been found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman! I am not making any inflexible God or suoernatural claim within the parameters of this discussion of an ID. I keep retelling you this and you keep ignoring it. You might as well stand in front of a mirror and argue against yourself. Why do you do that? I mean. I personally only need to be told one time what a person's position is and I accept it. I don't try to impose a position on someone that the person tells me he doesn't hold? That is unless I am striving to annoy. Then it might make sense. But as it stands, it makes no sense at all.

You keep using that word that you do not understand. It makes the rest of your post garbage.

And I was not responding to one of your posts so it would have been impossible for this to be a strawman of your position. Are you paying any attention at all here?

 

[victorinus]

No, I was simply pointing out how unreasonable that explanation was. How the universe began is still being studied but so far no need for a god of any sort has been found.

that is not only unreasonable -
it is simply not true

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is not only unreasonable -
it is simply not true

So your post was both unreasonable and not true. That is fine with me.

 

[Astrophile]

you don't know anything -

Perhaps, but can you demonstrate that you know more than I do.

you don't know the sun will come up tomorrow
-but-
it is reasonable to expect the sun to come up tomorrow -
it is reasonable to plan on the sun coming up tomorrow -

The Sun won't come up tomorrow; the appearance of the Sun rising is due to the Earth's rotation, not to the movement of the Sun. It is reasonable to expect the Earth to continue to rotate because there is nothing to stop it.

it is reasonable to believe that God made it that way -
-because-
you don't know what did

No, it is not reasonable to believe that God made it that way because we have no other answer, any more than it was reasonable for 15th and 16th-century astronomers to believe that there were angels pushing the planets round their orbits because they didn't know why the planets remained in their orbits. They are both God-of-the-gaps answers. It would only be reasonable to believe that God made it that way if one had independent evidence for the existence of a God who could create the sort of universe that we live in.

Suppose that cosmologists were to find out that the universe came into existence by natural processes, and that these processes were as comprehensible as the movements of the planets. Would you then stop believing in God because it was no longer reasonable to believe that He created the universe by supernatural means?

 

[victorinus]

Would you then stop believing in God because it was no longer reasonable to believe that He created the universe by supernatural means?

do you have any idea on how life got started?

 

[Speedwell]

do you have any idea on how life got started?

Suppose for purposes of this argument, that the universe and everything in it including life was found to have resulted from natural causes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

do you have any idea on how life got started?

Moving the goal posts is the same as admitting that you were wrong.

 

[-57]

Nah, just wandering why you guys can't stay on topic. When I post a thread on evolution, everybody wants to talk about the origin of the universe. When I post a thread on the origin of the universe, everybody wants to talk about evolution.

Go figure.

Were over 400 post into your original question...which you must come to realize there is a need for a God...then the topic turns a bit and shows how DNA also requires a God....and you squalk.

 

[victorinus]

Suppose for purposes of this argument, that the universe and everything in it including life was found to have resulted from natural causes.

so you don't want to talk about life

 

[victorinus]

Moving the goal posts is the same as admitting that you were wrong.

so you don't want to talk about life

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you don't want to talk about life

No, as long as you admit your previous error I am fine with you moving the goal posts.

Of course it is a bit off topic. The title of this thread is about what started the universe, not what started life.

 

[Radrook]

You keep using that word that you do not understand. It makes the rest of your post garbage.

And I was not responding to one of your posts so it would have been impossible for this to be a strawman of your position. Are you paying any attention at all here?

Posting straw man arguments and claiming that they aren't is what is garbage.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Are your arguments representing what I believe? NO!
If not then you have no valid reason to feel offended if I categorize them as strawman.
What you need to do. if indeed you are interested in discussing the matter, instead is to stop misrepresenting what I say. Unfortunately, all you do is take umbrage with my complaint that you are misrepresenting what I say. Whether or not you read my previous posts is irrelevant to the fact that you are misrepresenting and refuse to change that misrepresentation but prefer to nitpick instead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Posting straw man arguments and claiming that they aren't is what is garbage.

But you have not been able to find one strawman argument of mine. You just keep misusing that term.

ETA: For example in this thread you claimed that I was making a strawman of your argument when I responded to someone else. How that was a strawman I have no idea at all. But then as I said, you don't seem to know how to use that term properly. Yes, I have seen the website that you linked before. That means that you have no excuse in your misuse of that term.

 

[Speedwell]

so you don't want to talk about life

Astrophile posted: Would you then stop believing in God because it was no longer reasonable to believe that He created the universe by supernatural means?

You responded: do you have any idea on how life got started?

I thought you were trying to determine whether Astrophile's hypothetical question included the creation of life by natural forces.
If you want to talk about life, instead, that's fine. First I will answer Astrophile's hypothetical question, as expanded by me, for myself: No, I would not stop believing in God under those circumstances.

With respect to life in particular, no, I don't know how it started, nor does anyone else at present. I fully expect, however, that if and when the answer is discovered it will prove to be--like previous scientific discoveries--the apparent result of natural forces. That appears to me to be the way God has worked things out.

 

[Radrook]

But you have not been able to find one strawman argument of mine. You just keep misusing that term.

ETA: For example in this thread you claimed that I was making a strawman of your argument when I responded to someone else. How that was a strawman I have no idea at all. But then as I said, you don't seem to know how to use that term properly. Yes, I have seen the website that you linked before. That means that you have no excuse in your misuse of that term.

If indeed I responded to a post meant for someone else as if directed to me and called it strawman of my argument then you are right.
My apologies.