Where? I have a lot more than that.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about. Proof is only found in math and logic. I said I have evidence and reasoning that support a past finite universe. NOT PROVE a past finite universe.
Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.
Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?
There is nothing in the items you posted that say anything about a finite or infinite unversed.
I did say it did. I said it supports (not says) a past finite universe. Does a gun “say” who the murderer is? vs. Can a gun be used as evidence to support a case that identifies who the murder is?
You can interpret science philosophically as you please, but it is all speculation.
Thus you are in the same game. So the issue is …..are you more reasonable or am I? After all you are denying that the universe is expanding……which is you interpreting science philosophically.
Try using sylogisms.
p1 expanding universe says this
p2 red shift says this
c1 therfpre universe is finite.
Straw man representation of KCA.
Which is…..
p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause
p2 the universe began to exist
C the universe has a cause.
It all comes down to something from nothing, counter to aws Of Conservation,
Not at all. AS explained earlier. The LoC is physical law that governs our physical universe. If the physical universe did not exists then LoC would not exist. If you are right, why don’t cosmologists consider the LoC a violation of the SBBM? They don’t. And the reason they don’t is the reason your speculation that the LoC supports and eternal past universe doesn’t work.
or the unverse cme out of nothing which I reject as an unreasonable hypothesis
Remember we are dealing with the notion that the universe began to exist. All space, matter and time came into being from nothing. Meaning no space. No matter. No time. That is what we are dealing with.
Unless….
You have a more reasonable theory that would support that the universe is past eternal. You have provided nothing but your emotions that it is eternal. You are asserting a nature-of-the-gap reasoning.
Abrahamic religions say it was created by god without any definition of god.
Yes the say God created the universe. So God is creator. What’s the problem?
I assume god was around for all time unless it too just winked into existence from nothing.
Yes God is eternal. That which is eternal did not begin to exist.
Given god exists as your presumption, then you can sysnthesize any sort of theology and creation myth. God is all powerful, so god can do anything.
First, I don’t presume He exists. I reason that He exists as the eternal first cause of all else that exists.
Second, “sysnthesize” and “myth” are examples of you “sysnthesizeing” and “mythizing”. You are in the same boat/universe. Your creation myth is the the universe is eternal based on your errant belief the the LoC “proves” the universe is eternal.
Third, God cannot do that which is logically impossible.
Creationism is riddled with problems in logic and reason, and unexplained questions. All dismissed by a faith in god. I know god exists, theerefore creationism is true.
I have NOT DISMISSED anything. I have addressed all you have presented so far. It is you that is dodging your burden to give a reasonable explanation that is purely natural. I have asked you many questions that point the errors in your reasoning and logic…..BUT you never address them. So if you don’t answer my question above regarding the LoC, you would be affirming my assessment that it is you that is denying your burden.
It is the logical fallacy of bootstrapping. The assumed conclusion with no proof is used to validate the evidence. God is true therefore the evidence of science has to validate that god is true.
Easy to emote. This time show me where God is assumed in any of the premises. You won’t be able to, because your assertion is purely emotional. You heard it somewhere and have a blind faith that it is true.