What cosmological argument?

Let's argue about hypothetical nonsense! Live discussion at http://chat.emptv.com/

The music is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Frederick_Chopin_-_Concert...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/ZJ/70874246213
http://twitter.com/ZJemptv
http://myspace.com/zjemptv

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• existence
• of
• god
• religion
• christianity
• islam
• theism
• atheism
• intelligent
• design
• creationism
• universe
• cosmology
• big
• bang
• theory
• deity
• causality
• infinity
• law
• gravitational
• singularity
• something
• from
• nothing
• forever
• eternity

[TheCeejReturns]

Hell, it's more scientifically plausible to say that the singularity that sparked the big bang was caused by the existing universe collapsing on itself with the assertion that time is circular than it does to assert a god that broke its own rules must have done it.

[ArdensSedVirens]

Philosphy FAIL! lol

[TheOkami1113]

(Now bare with me) I think the universe was caused not by s crushing, but the is like riffle effect--a pulling. Perhaps the gravity of "ripple universes" pulling at a center is the cause for another singularity in the epicenter. And this could happen because each "tug" is constantly greater the more and more "ripple universes" there are. Our ripple will spread and pull at the epicenter until such a stress where another ripple is created: universal birth.

[HukenShquirrel]

the big bang singularity has zero mass and by definition that means that at that "time" it did not exsist

[gregrutz]

Creationist logic: The universe has a cause therefore God of the bible dun it.

[tetrahydroscope]

@LexiePersonForever Killing or sterilizing those who would pollute the gene pool (or sap finite resources) not only ensures the survival of the ethnic group from an evolutionary stand point, but it also ensures the survival of the species. If morality is meant to promote evolution, then social Darwinism and eugenics are moral because they promote evolution. I'm done adding views to this vid so PM me if I haven't made it clear enough for you.

[LexiePersonForever]

@tetrahydroscope It has been. That's only between other species, though. When I said that killing is bad, I meant within a species. Evolution is used to help increase the chance of survival of a species, and if that species just starts killing itself, the whole thing is pointless and that species will eventually die off unless reproduction keeps up. Accepting where our morals comes from does not necessarily lead to social Darwinism. They're two separate issues.

[tetrahydroscope]

@LexiePersonForever Killing has always been a way to promote evolutionary progress; whether through infanticide of disabled children to prevent the sapping of energy and resources, or through conflict with ethnic or racial rivals in order to possess limited resources. If morality is completely naturalistic, then the western world is justified in dominating the globe because it is the interest of perpetuating the western world. If morality is drawn from evolution, then social Darwinism is moral.

[LexiePersonForever]

@tetrahydroscope Knowing where the feeling of love comes from does not take away the pleasure of loving someone. It DID come from evolution to help keep people together for maximum chance of survival, but that doesn't make me want to love people less. We just know why we feel it, now. No, killing is not justified now. Since love is used to keep people alive and killing is used to... not keep people alive, they have two completely different results. Killing = bad in science, and love = good.

[tetrahydroscope]

@LexiePersonForever Science has the most answers for scientific questions.If the answer to the nature of the love for family is that its a biological imperative of evolution, then love lacks inherent meaning.Someone who cares for their family is experiencing an illusion,so a sociopath would be equally justified in killing your family as you would be in protecting your family.Both of those actions are equally valid if the question of Rightness is answered by science.Nihilism is the conclusion.

[LexiePersonForever]

@tetrahydroscope The reason for a demand of scientific proof is because science has most answers. It even has the answers to why we feel certain emotions or why we find certain things about people we once loved about someone annoying. It's pretty safe to say that there's a scientific reason for everything, and we don't want to cease the exploration for this knowledge. Please enlighten me with the logical conclusion I should reach. We don't really know that or much else about the universe, sorry.