Mr_Anony:
Once again, the analogy is lost on you. SMH

Mr_Anony:
Lol.....Mazaje enters the building one more time.

We have had this exact same exchange before, go look up my response, I haven't changed my position.

MacDaddy01:


Your a dishonest fellow.


We dont infer, we know cause we experience such thoughts.

We infer from the actions/xters of space, energy and time and the prinicples of the universe that a big bang happened.


How the hell do you infer that god created the universe?

-Why created? Why not occured? Occured from another universe that was crushed into a blackhole etc?

-Why created by a god? Why not created by a race of aliens that died?

mazaje:

LOL! I don't consider that to be a valid reason at all. . .Any way to each his own. . ..

Mr_Anony:
Lol, we are still yet to experience that your roast beef thought.

How do we infer that the above message was typed by you, why not a race of aliens from the faraway planet Xaquirento?

MacDaddy01:


We dont assume or infer nonsense. We infer things based on facts.


You infer nonsense about a god creating the earth. The same way another person can infer nonsense without evidence about aliens creating the universe.

Mr_Anony:
How's this for a fact: The universe has a beginning therefore it was caused. Do you agree with this at least?

MacDaddy01:

Nope. The universe had a beginning.

The universe could have been a happening or an occurrence. Example- An explosion of energy and matter from another universe reduced to a particle. An oscillating universe. There are numerous speculations all without evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model



if even I am to agree with your created universe, how do we know who or what the creator or creators are?

MacDaddy01:

Nope. The universe had a beginning.

The universe could have been a happening or an occurrence. Example- An explosion of energy and matter from another universe reduced to a particle. An oscillating universe. There are numerous speculations all without evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model



if even I am to agree with your created universe, how do we know who or what the creator or creators are?

Mr_Anony:
My friend, this is exactly why we cannot define energy as eternal. We can define it as infinite but definitely not eternal. Eternal is what we use to define a specific entity with known attributes which also has the quality of timelessness. For instance, we can say that numbers are infinite but we cannot say that numbers are eternal.

Energy cannot exist on it's own, energy is only what we use to explain matter and it's motions, when it is moving, we call it kinetic and when it is at rest we talk about it's potential to move. Basically, what Einstein was talking about was that the faster a body moves, the more it sheds it's mass until it becomes so small and disappears emitting energy (light). However, since the speed of light was the highest speed known to einstein, smallest particle known to einstein was then the photon. If the photon could move even faster, then it would tend even closer and closer to nothingness i.e. no mass and consequently no energy.

There was no mass at the instant of the Big Bang, just the first infinitesimal bit of space and Pure energy. The first mass appeared after
the Big Bang event when the
universe had cooled enough
for the first subatomic
particles to form.

Ihedinobi:

This guy too much. Nope, says he, the universe does not have a cause but it has a beginning that was probably brought about by.......bla bla bla. Is it really possible that he cannot see that he just agreed that the universe had a beginning and a cause? Especially considering that he goes on to produce conjectures about causes?

Deep Sight:

Please stop embarrassing yourself with your repeated failure to read. He said - The universe had a beginning therefore it was caused. At this first premise, he has not said created. He said caused. And it is impossible to accede to a beginning without acceding to a cause. IT IS DISMAL, that you can fail to recognize that all the examples you gave are CAUSES. Even in a cyclic model where the universe arises from another universe - then that is STILL A CAUSE.

As such, once you accede to a beginning, you accede to a cause. The question then remains WHAT is the cause. That is where the discussion now starts from. At this point we will begin to consider the nature of matter and energy and make suggestions that can be queried by logic. It is thus wrong for you to accede to a beginning and deny a cause. Do not assume that when the word "cause" is used in the discussion, we have automatically presumed God.

The cause could validly be held to be a principle, a force, a reaction from somthing else, etc.

However it is in the very cowardly nature of most atheists on this forum, that they would NEVER even permit the discussion to reach this stage where we begin to discuss what the cause could possibly be. Virtually EVERY single discussion I have had with atheists on this forum since i registered in 2009 has be limited to the simple fact that they would very illogically and dishonestly close the conversation at the very early stage by inanely stating and holding that -

- There is no reason to say that the universe had a beginning: [thehomer/ martian/ jayriginal] and they say this even though it contradicts the science of the matter

- There is no reason to say that even if it has a beginning, it has a cause - and they say this even though it contradicts the science of the matter

The very ridiculous amongst them would also go [b]as far as to say that -

- There is no definition of the word God, and so no discussion on the matter can hold AT ALL [Idehn: and he has NEVER discussed beyond this.]

- Time and Space do not exist at all and only exist in the human mind [Idehn again: violently against all science, reason and logic]

- We do not know that anything that begins has a cause [Jayriginal: violently against the science of the matter]

NONE of these people have ever ventured to discuss in substance what could possibly be tenable propositions of the actual cause itself.

For these reasons, I am sorry, but I find it difficult to take anyone of them seriously in the least: because there has never been a time when an articulated discussion of the substance of the issues has even been attempted: not to speak about discussed in-toto.

In short I have never had a serious discussion with any atheist on this forum. It is not serious, when people deny basic reason, and obvious science: to adopt the most ridiculously unscientific positions ever [Kag: things may pop out of nothingness/ Jayriginal: We do not know that movement requires a trigger: this is an assumption and argument from ignorance/ thehomer: Everything is physical and all physical things exist in time, but the singularity is physical and did not, i could go on ad infinitum].

As such, when you see me having a laugh about their very very poor grasp of issues, you should have no wonder about why I tend to view these people as those of whom it may be said: a little learning is a terrible thing indeed. Like village interpreters in colonial times who had a small smatterring of English, they seem to have had a small taste of reading and thus imagine themselves acquainted with certain issues, whilst apparently refusing to use their rational faculties: and in almost all cases, even flinging out the window every slightest scent of logic.

Your case has been far worse than the gentlemen I have mentioned: you have come across, no offence, as clueless toddler with a terrible case of mis-information and even mis-education.

I mean no offence. I speak as I see it.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:
Stop being lazy. We know that this is what is said. This does nothing to change the point or the question. Have a look at this -
Now lets say that X, Y and Z above are galaxies. Let us also say that they are stationary, but that the space between them is expanding and increasing. If this happens, then X is going to keep moving further to the left and Z further to the right. That would mean that our hypothetical three galaxy universe above has moved into previously unnocupied space on the left and the right.
Such space could not be said to be a function of the universe because our universe is just consisting of these three galaxies and the space between them. As such the spaces to the right and left where our galaxies "move" into, are not made by our universe or its commencement.
It is already existing space.

Deep Sight:
We know there would be terrible consequences if so any hypothetical reason the earth stopped moving, but glad you understand its an analogy. If the earth stopped moving and you and I remain alive here for any period on it, it would still take you five minutes to sit still and meditate on your day, and when you have finished you would know that that meditation is in the past. Indeed whatever else happes, you would recognize events as receding into teh past. Time would still exist.

Deep Sight:
And this would apply even if we hypothetically lived in a stationary universe where the planets, stars and galaxies were not moving: there would still be a precept of past, present and future:

Deep Sight:
If all galaxies stopped moving right now, would time cease to exist? Now let me ask you another question: [u]if the universe starts collapsing - that is, galaxies start moving back closer to one another - would time "move backward?"

Deep Sight: Will we time travel to our past? If the earth starts rotating backwards around the sun, would that bring back the events of yesterday and yester years?

Deep Sight: What this shows is that times exists regardless of whether cosmic bodies move or not. Thus we cannot say that time is created by movement of cosmic bodies: rather time is a perfect intangible.

For objects in our ordinary experience, like the rising loaf of raisin bread dough also used as an analogy to the expanding Universe, there are two ways to see that the object is expanding:
The distances between objects are all increasing, so the distance between any pair of raisins increases by an amount proportional to the distance.
The edge of the loaf pushes out into previously unoccupied space. Note the distance between any pair of points on the edge increases by an amount proportional to the distance.
The first statement involves the internal geometry of the object, which can be measured by an observer sitting in the object. The second statement involves the external geometry of the object, which can only be measured by an observer outside the object. Since we are stuck within our spacetime, we need to study the internal geometry of space-time, and that is what general relativity does. In terms of internal geometry, any object with the first property above is expanding. Furthermore the Universe is homogeneous so it does not have any edge. Thus it can't have the second property above. But it does have the first property so we say the Universe is expanding.

Martian:

If you insist you know better, present your measurements and observations instead of your feelings.

Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

. . .

A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the Universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the Universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

MacDaddy01:


lmao x10!


Retardeen! I said that we dont know what happened before the big bang. I gave speculations of what could happen before the big bang that had no evidence and said that god too is a speculation.

Ihedinobi:

What does that have to do with anything? His question was whether you agreed that the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. What was your answer? A very contradiction if ever there was one.

Ihedinobi:

What does that have to do with anything? His question was whether you agreed that the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. What was your answer? A very contradiction if ever there was one.

mkmyers45: Are you falling back to concede the existence of nothingness so as to avoid agreeing that energy is eternal? which one? Energy is timeless..They had to be energy pre-big bang [hot and densed up medium]. Or are you insinuating that the universe once had ZPEF=0? Hence possible ex-nihilo?

cyrexx:

normally i dont join the issues of abiogenesis, cosmology and cosmogony because there are seasoned experts in that field from whom we can learn. But i will briefly make an exception here.

Something having a beginning does not necessarily mean it has a cause or supernatural cause as you would want to believe. It could be a step in the sequence of naturally occuring events that happens bringing about the big b4ng event. Nobody knows for sure at least for now. Science is unravelling the mysteries gradually and different religions have their own creation stories to solve the mystery.

Just like i said i have no interest in debating along this scientific field cos we have expert scientist who would do justice to that topic better than i can. I just chipped in a little idea i had on what you said.

Cheers.

MacDaddy01:


what is the big bang?

Ihedinobi:

As it is, we haven't even got close to starting an argument about the big ban.g or any other theories for how the universe began. We're still stuck waiting for you guys to finish your brain boot-up ( just kidding....well, maybe not) in case it'll help us come to agreement that nothing can begin to exist without having a cause to bring about that beginning.

cyrexx:

okay, okay.

Let's assume the universe was caused. Do you know who or what this cause will be?

Ihedinobi:

The Christian position, which I hold, is that Yahweh or I AM Who later took human flesh or nature to redeem all creation back to its correct condition caused or created everything that exists in every realm.

cyrexx:

fine,

so would you agree with me if i say ALLAH, the most merciful, the most beneficient, the one who is not begotten and who begat no one is the true God who caused or created everything that exists in every realm?

Ihedinobi:

Cyrexx, in a discussion, I say A, you say B where B = a rebuttal or refutal of A or a question for clarification of A or a consolidation of A or agreement with A.

Would you say that your comment which I quoted here classes in any way as B as I have described?

Edit: if you would say so, why?

cyrexx:

you mean clashes or classes

if latter, i will reply they are in the same class based on varieties of religion and culture.

There is no convincing evidence for your statement any greater than the convincing evidence for my statement, anybody can pick either satement depending on his religious and cultural background and claim it as the truth.

Whereas the scientific statement can be verified and tested and confirmed to hold true irrespective of any cultural or religious background.

Do you agree?

Ihedinobi:
I meant that your comment did not flow with the discussion. If you object to my submission, you say why you do so.

Ihedinobi:
If your objection is that my submission resembles another submission that you reject then you bring yourself under obligation to show that they are the exact same thing.

Ihedinobi:
You also prevent me from making a case for my submission.

Ihedinobi:
But since I don't mind being generous, you have to show me now how my declaration that Yahweh created everything which He later redeemed from the corruption that came upon it is the same as your claim that Allah created everything.

Ihedinobi:
My questions then,
¤ Who is Allah?

Ihedinobi:
¤ Why would he create?

Ihedinobi:
¤ How does he sustain that which he has created?

Ihedinobi:
¤ Why is there evil in his creation?

Ihedinobi:
¤ What has he or is he doing about it?

Ihedinobi:

The Christian position, which I hold, is that Yahweh or I AM Who later took human flesh or nature to redeem all creation back to its correct condition caused or created everything that exists in every realm.

Ihedinobi:

You tend to accept speculation as reality. Mr Anony conditioned the possibility of matter becoming nothing on its ability to reach the highest speeds. Before you can accept this as reality, you must first ascertain that it is a very possibility that matter can reach such speeds.

Again, I'll say that if you keep treating energy the way that you do, we must necessarily accept that energy is isolable from that which exhibits it as a property. If we must, on what authority are we to do so? Do you know of any instance where energy was isolated from matter? What was it like?

As for the ex nihilo argument, your premise is flawed rendering it a non-argument.

Edited to read "your premise......"

cyrexx:

i believe my comment flow with the discussion as i would confirm shortly
i objected to your submission and i gave the reason that your submission is based on a single religion/culture among many other similar ones. Pls read my post again




i never said they were exact same thing. I said they were similar (e.g. both requires faith and gives no verifiable and convincing evidence that their own creator is valid while others are not).




i dont think i did that. You are always free to make your case and i will listen and accept it if is not against reason and logic.




pls refer to my earlier post about similarities between Yahweh as a creator and Allah as a creator


Allah is the omnipotent, uncreated creator, not begotten and he begat no one.


He is Sovereign Omnisciet creator who wishes to create mankind and djinns for his purpose and pleasure



he is the most beneficient most merciful one who sustains everything by his omnibenevolent lovingkindness and omnipotent power



allah knows what is best and his knowledge is beyond the ability of mortals to grasp. He is sovereign and he knows all thing. In the end he shall destroy all evil.



he is demanding that people should believe him and worship no other god but him, he is not begotten and he begat no one. In the fulness of time he will destroy all evil and all those who worship other gods beside him. Right now he is pleading with you to stop your idolatry and dont join yourself to the evil he shall soon destroy all together.