Re: What cosmological argument?
Uploader Comments (evangelical1)
Video Responses
All Comments (166)
-
@BreakoutLuceal you dont have multiple questions to answer... Anyway, according to spiff.rit.edu, "The Big Bang theory postulates that the entire universe was so hot at one time that it was filled with this proton-neutron-electron 'soup'." It was a mix of the combined natural forces and the constant collision of these soup particles that caused the expansion.
-
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
-
"You don't understand the argument so you have a straw man', which is itself a straw man.
-
'I have evidence', 'we can show', BULLSHIT. You have shown nothing but your own ignorance and arrogance and pretense and willingness to bullshit people. Are we to believe you are this unclear on the meaning of words, 'evidence', 'show'?
-
@evangelical1 "More precisely, I should have said that God depends for His existence upon His own nature which, in turn, is necessary" Which is saying exactly nothing but "I believe that there is necessity so I have asserted such a necessity'. And another thing you need in support of this is 'you don't understand the argument'. No, we bloody well understand it and understand the utter circularity of it. The more you try to get around that circle the more you show it's a circle.
First of all, we really need to define what you mean by ''god'' because I have a dozen different definitions.
Badmusicpeoplelove 6 months ago
@Badmusicpeoplelove God is the creator/sustainer of the cosmos. What is second of all?
evangelical1 6 months ago
No! The "Big Bang" model does NOT say that the universe had a beginning.
It extrapolates, in reverse, the expansion of the universe to a singularity of infinite density and zero mass. Anything before that is speculation, from which some pretty good ideas have been posited. All of which are better than a supernatural magic man who "spake it into existence.
The rest of your argument is pointless. If YOUR cause of the universe doesn't require explanation for its existence, neither does any other.
Tobytrim 7 months ago
@Tobytrim The initial expansion from the singularity is the beginning of the universe I have in mind. The wikipedia article (and general science 101) clearly states the universe began about 13 billion years ago give or take. If it began 13 billion years ago, then it had a beginning. There is no getting around this point, I think. God is neither a man nor magical on my view so that is a straw man. The universe and God both require an explanation of my view so that's another straw man.
evangelical1 6 months ago
@evangelical1 "The initial expansion from the singularity is the beginning of the universe I have in mind" So show how it's a beginning. You're bullshitting. You can't know what a singularity is and think it shows any beginning. You don't have anything 'in mind'. that isn't thinking. That is you pretending to know about something you lack good information about. You lack good information because you aren't interested in that, you're wholly dishonest and seek only to cherry pick & regurgitate.
jancivil 6 months ago
@jancivil I don't have to show how it is a beginning for that is what it is. The universe began 13 billion years ago according to wikipedia (and, more importantly, according to cosmologists). When something began at some point in the past we say that it had a beginning. What else could we say about it? I am interested in science and was not intentially cherry picking. If I did misrepresent something could you give a fuller quotation/reference/explanation?
evangelical1 6 months ago