Hut hut HIKE!
You are free to reject what you call an "unsupported premise" or any part of my response that pleases you.
No hand-waving on the line of scrimmage. You’ve been flagged.
I did more than reject your premise. I countered it. Thus you now have the burden to defend your insulting assertion………………
Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit. Either I don't have the information that I require to make an informed decision and so I just go with the teaching, or I do in fact possess a significant degree knowledge to bring to bear but am afraid to face the resulting conclusion, and so I opt to live a lie, namely that I prefer ignorance to truth. In either case I am living an untruth, however comforting.
……against my evidence for a past finite universe. Specifically where was my evidence ignorant or self-deceitful? I provided several scientific supports. Let’s examine what you brought.
I'm a scientifically literate and rational organism that comes to conclusions based on my genetic inheritance and environmental interactions.
We’ll see.
I certainly claim the same, despite your apparent blind faith that theism is anti-scientific.
So……
Now let’s examine what we each provided for our perspective positions.
For your past eternal universe you offer……..
If you know anything about the universe you would know that all matter/energy is conserved. That's not an assertion, that is basic science. The way you think about the universe having a beginning is the same as an ice cube in my freezer having a beginning as water. If it pleases you to get all semantically happy then you can say that your universe began at the big bang just like I can say that my ice cube began when I put water in the freezer. You should brush up on your science.
Very weak but your insults add a nice touch. Offering something that weak and then insulting my scientific prowess is priceless.
Here is where your weak evidence and reasoning fails…..
The first law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, and therefore is a physical law. Physical laws only apply within the arena of the space-time continuum. They can’t apply to the origin of the arena itself. The physical law of conservation logically can’t govern before the beginning of the physical universe or the causal conditions that would bring the physical universe into being, or apply outside the arena of the physical space-time continuum. The physical law of conservation only applies once the physical space-time continuum is in place and exists.
Seriously you’re scientifically literate …So ask yourself……
Why don’t the cosmologists regard the first law as violation of the SBBM?
Serious question.
They are now writing books about a beginning universe. Their efforts to explain it naturally have failed miserably, but their efforts DO acknowledge a past finite universe. The truth with your so called evidence for a past eternal universe is that you bought into some atheistic dogma. That you self-deluded yourself into believing. Just like you asserted that “religious faithers” do in your OP.
So now ……
Let’s examine what you had to say about the evidence and reasoning…….
For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.
…..I provided.
?
??
???
What?
Nothing?
You provided absolutely nothing.
But your dogma still piled higher……………….
Ah, the old KLM and beginnings argument. That's been dynamited so many times but I agree with you that if someone told me about how a santa wasn't real and I was a typical four-year-old I'd have plenty of things to bring up in my argument for santa. Look at all those presents! Look at all the kids who testify that they know santa is real! Look at all the parents saying the same thing! Look at all the stories about santa! Look at how the cookies I leave for him get eaten! Look at how those carrots get eaten that I leave for his flying reindeer! Look at all the evidence for my santa!
….and higher. Atheists continually delude themselves that their dreams of a dynamited KCA are real. Some actually have a blind faith that the law of conservation has done the job. No matter what reason is given to them they still have their blind faith that the KCA is dead and buried.
Further……
You claim you’re scientific. Yet your defense is supported by cookies, presents and reindeer. Against my 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, GTR, the BGV theorem, etc. Wake up already.
So at this point, my evidence remains unchallenged and yours has been sacked. Care to try again?
next...........
I'm a consistent fellow who practices certainty in many aspects of my life, same as you. Absolute certainty must have some kind of religious meaning to you. It never comes up in my life. So maybe you mean reasonable certainty. Is that what you mean?
Absolute certainty is only found in mathematics and logic. I can go with your “reasonable certainty” for now. All belief should have sufficient reason. Meaning it is more plausible than the alternatives and beyond a reasonable doubt.
So this…………….
See how being reasonable is different than talking about absolutism? Because I'm a reasonable person and not an absolutist like yourself …..
….is another self-delusion. Yet you seem so ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of yourself.
Sorry if I ignored your question for so long. I've had you on ignore like forever, I think from our first interaction whenever that was, seems like years ago.
It was years ago. You forgot my MO was “tone for tone.” Well thanks for trying. You can put me back on ignore and go rejoin your atheistic cuddle huddle.