The universe is proof of god!

[Random Person]

You're still not getting it.

You're referring to observations made in the before time. So, yeah, you're stipulating an eyewitness.

How could an eyewitness exist before time?

You are hijacking my argument and making it yours.

- - - Updated - - -

I have tried that for years but have yet been unable to find any "believer" capable of understanding that their belief is unfounded - that it is only faith in what they have been told with no evidence. They can easily understand that the "farting goat theory" is unfounded and unevidenced which only leaves having to show that both "theories" are equally unfounded and unevidenced. You are apparently unfamiliar with the ancient technique demonstrating absurdity by offering absurdity.

yes.

If we already know the answer then there is no need for science.

That's not true either. When we already know the answer we can teach science in schools to kids that don't already know the answer.

Yet again indicating that you don't understand what science is. Teaching science is education, not science just as teaching journalism is not journalism.

I said, "Scientific research is predicated on assuming there are explanations for what we don't understand." I stand by that. Scientific Research grants would be damn near impossible to get if we believed that there is no explanation for what we don't already understand.

Science - scientific research. Two similar but different things. Context and precision.

Or maybe it is that you don't know what "explanation" means.

Nope. It turns out I do.

Then you should be much more careful in using it in your posts.

I'm just relieved you gave up the farting goat thing.

I'm calling that progress.

 

[skepticalbip]

How could an eyewitness exist before time?

You are hijacking my argument and making it yours.

- - - Updated - - -

I have tried that for years but have yet been unable to find any "believer" capable of understanding that their belief is unfounded - that it is only faith in what they have been told with no evidence. They can easily understand that the "farting goat theory" is unfounded and unevidenced which only leaves having to show that both "theories" are equally unfounded and unevidenced. You are apparently unfamiliar with the ancient technique demonstrating absurdity by offering absurdity.

yes.

If we already know the answer then there is no need for science.

That's not true either. When we already know the answer we can teach science in schools to kids that don't already know the answer.

Yet again indicating that you don't understand what science is. Teaching science is education, not science just as teaching journalism is not journalism.

I said, "Scientific research is predicated on assuming there are explanations for what we don't understand." I stand by that. Scientific Research grants would be damn near impossible to get if we believed that there is no explanation for what we don't already understand.

Science - scientific research. Two similar but different things. Context and precision.

Or maybe it is that you don't know what "explanation" means.

Nope. It turns out I do.

Then you should be much more careful in using it in your posts.

I'm just relieved you gave up the farting goat thing.
.

The farting goat theory will not be given up until the "goddidit theory" is recognized as equally absurd. The farting goat theory is too useful in pointing out the similarities with the "goddidit theory"... any argument the "believer" makes against the farting goat theory can be applied to the goddidit theory.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

There you have it folks. The universe officially no longer exists. Bye. *poof*

 

[Keith&Co.]

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

There you have it folks. The universe officially no longer exists. Bye. *poof*

Nah.
Logic only examines the consistency of an idea, it cannot be used to decide if reality gives a flying crap about the logic.

 

[Lion IRC]

I have tried that for years but have yet been unable to find any "believer" capable of understanding that their belief is unfounded - that it is only faith in what they have been told with no evidence.

Unfounded? Rubbish.
If I hear corroborated eye witness testimony of events that I myself didn't observe, and I accept they are telling the truth, how is that "unfounded"?
There's a ton of peer-reviewed claims made by science which I take as true even though I don't own an electron microscope or large hadron collider.

In order for observation to occur there would have to be an observer.

An observer, but not necessarily an eyewitness...

Who is making the observation of the thing being observed?

 

[Lion IRC]

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

It couldn't be a matter of observation, because there would be no observer.

See how skepticalbip names the thing which creates itself. It's circular reasoning.
Pre-existing "quantum" is real because we see spontaneous "quantum" which is further evidence of "quantum".

What an unscientific and lazy approach to presume that undetected = spontaneous
And from folks who won't allow intelligent design a seat at the table.

 

[Random Person]

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

It couldn't be a matter of observation, because there would be no observer.

See how skepticalbip names the thing which creates itself. It's circular reasoning.
Pre-existing "quantum" is real because we see spontaneous "quantum" which is further evidence of "quantum".

What an unscientific and lazy approach to presume that undetected = spontaneous
And from folks who won't allow intelligent design a seat at the table.

They kind of give circular reasoning a bad name. Quantumdidit.

 

[bilby]

I am not stipulating "eyewitness". In your example the crime scene investigators are observers. They are physical beings observing physical evidence. Neither one of those things existed before the universe did.

- - - Updated - - -

'Material things' is synonymous with 'real things'. Non-material things don't do anything, including create universes.

Is information a real thing?

No. It's a property of real things.

It's more likely that real things are a property of information.

You have shown very limited knowledge or understanding of anything up to this point, so why should i give the slightest consideration to what you do or do not consider 'likely'?

Your assessments of the likelihood of stupid or impossible things make you an unreliable source, and your opinion is valueless to me.

If you have some evidence to support your opinion, then I shall consider it; But I am not at all hopeful that it exists, or if it does, that it will be any less awful than the rest of your nonsense.

 

[Random Person]

I am not stipulating "eyewitness". In your example the crime scene investigators are observers. They are physical beings observing physical evidence. Neither one of those things existed before the universe did.

- - - Updated - - -

Is information a real thing?

No. It's a property of real things.

It's more likely that real things are a property of information.

You have shown very limited knowledge or understanding of anything up to this point, so why should i give the slightest consideration to what you do or do not consider 'likely'?

Your assessments of the likelihood of stupid or impossible things make you an unreliable source, and your opinion is valueless to me.

If you have some evidence to support your opinion, then I shall consider it; But I am not at all hopeful that it exists, or if it does, that it will be any less awful than the rest of your nonsense.

That made me laugh thanks.

 

[skepticalbip]

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

It couldn't be a matter of observation, because there would be no observer.

See how skepticalbip names the thing which creates itself. It's circular reasoning.
Pre-existing "quantum" is real because we see spontaneous "quantum" which is further evidence of "quantum".

What an unscientific and lazy approach to presume that undetected = spontaneous
And from folks who won't allow intelligent design a seat at the table.

At least you are being consistent. I see you are using the same "logic" as used to "prove" creation. You don't have a clue about what I described so, since you don't have a clue, assert that you have full understanding. For the universe, no one has a clue how or even if the universe began so creationists assert that goddidit is the valid truth.

 

[Random Person]

See how skepticalbip names the thing which creates itself. It's circular reasoning.
Pre-existing "quantum" is real because we see spontaneous "quantum" which is further evidence of "quantum".

What an unscientific and lazy approach to presume that undetected = spontaneous
And from folks who won't allow intelligent design a seat at the table.

At least you are being consistent. I see you are using the same "logic" as used to "prove" creation. You don't have a clue about what I described so, since you don't have a clue, assert that you have full understanding. For the universe, no one has a clue how or even if the universe began so creationists assert that goddidit is the valid truth.

You are creating a straw man argument.

You are saying Quantumdidit while rejecting Goddidit. You just opened up a quantum can of worms.

Don't let the farting goat eat them.

 

[skepticalbip]

See how skepticalbip names the thing which creates itself. It's circular reasoning.
Pre-existing "quantum" is real because we see spontaneous "quantum" which is further evidence of "quantum".

What an unscientific and lazy approach to presume that undetected = spontaneous
And from folks who won't allow intelligent design a seat at the table.

At least you are being consistent. I see you are using the same "logic" as used to "prove" creation. You don't have a clue about what I described so, since you don't have a clue, assert that you have full understanding. For the universe, no one has a clue how or even if the universe began so creationists assert that goddidit is the valid truth.

You are creating a straw man argument.

You are saying Quantumdidit while rejecting Goddidit. You just opened up a quantum can of worms.

Don't let the farting goat eat them.

WTF are you talking about?? It is you trying to create a strawman. My response about quantum fluctuation was in response to your specific question if I knew of anything that created itself, not how the universe was "created". Certainly we know that particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously spring out of nothing.

You are now trying to make that answer to your specific question a comment on "how the universe began". That is a strawman.

 

[Random Person]

You are creating a straw man argument.

You are saying Quantumdidit while rejecting Goddidit. You just opened up a quantum can of worms.

Don't let the farting goat eat them.

WTF are you talking about?? It is you trying to create a strawman. My response about quantum fluctuation was in response to your specific question if I knew of anything that created itself, not how the universe was "created". Certainly we know that particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously spring out of nothing.

You are now trying to make that answer to your specific question a comment on "how the universe began". That is a strawman.

Do you believe the universe created itself?

 

[skepticalbip]

You are creating a straw man argument.

You are saying Quantumdidit while rejecting Goddidit. You just opened up a quantum can of worms.

Don't let the farting goat eat them.

WTF are you talking about?? It is you trying to create a strawman. My response about quantum fluctuation was in response to your specific question if I knew of anything that created itself, not how the universe was "created". Certainly we know that particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously spring out of nothing.

You are now trying to make that answer to your specific question a comment on "how the universe began". That is a strawman.

Do you believe the universe created itself?

I don't have a clue how, or even if, the universe began. The universe could be eternal. Our observable universe could be a black hole within a greater universe.... etc., etc., etc.

The greatest problem I have with the religious mind is that they can not bring themselves to accept that they don't know something so grasp at unfounded "answers" in lieu of a self admission of ignorance.

 

[Random Person]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

I don't have a clue how, or even if, the universe began. The universe could be eternal. Our observable universe could be a black hole within a greater universe.... etc., etc., etc.

The greatest problem I have with the religious mind is that they can not bring themselves to accept that they don't know something so grasp at unfounded "answers" in lieu of a self admission of ignorance.

Have you considered the possibility that you have lost perspective?

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

I don't have a clue how, or even if, the universe began. The universe could be eternal. Our observable universe could be a black hole within a greater universe.... etc., etc., etc.

The greatest problem I have with the religious mind is that they can not bring themselves to accept that they don't know something so grasp at unfounded "answers" in lieu of a self admission of ignorance.

Have you considered the possibility that you have lost perspective?

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We know virtual particles exist. We know that on very rare occasions a certain kind of VP can create an entire island universe. (Alan Guth and others) This implies that we live in a multi-Universe that is infinite in expanse and time. I have no good reason to not believe what sober cosmologists with a lot of experience and a track record of discovering things and demonstrating them true, such as the nature of the observable Universe,

The many contradictions, incoherencies and problems that the claims of this Christian/Islamic omni-everything creator God seem to be mired in makes me doubt that God can exist. And basically, the idea that this God thing exists, has always existed, and has no cause, and is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal, has will and knowledge does not to me, smack of being likely, or even possible. Why should I believe that? It makes no sense and there is no good evidence for that hypothesis.

 

[Rhea]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

I don't have a clue how, or even if, the universe began. The universe could be eternal. Our observable universe could be a black hole within a greater universe.... etc., etc., etc.

The greatest problem I have with the religious mind is that they can not bring themselves to accept that they don't know something so grasp at unfounded "answers" in lieu of a self admission of ignorance.

Have you considered the possibility that you have lost perspective?

This seems like a non sequitur.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are creating a straw man argument.

You are saying Quantumdidit while rejecting Goddidit. You just opened up a quantum can of worms.

Don't let the farting goat eat them.

WTF are you talking about?? It is you trying to create a strawman. My response about quantum fluctuation was in response to your specific question if I knew of anything that created itself, not how the universe was "created". Certainly we know that particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously spring out of nothing.

You are now trying to make that answer to your specific question a comment on "how the universe began". That is a strawman.

Do you believe the universe created itself?

I just happened to remember that there is a book written by a noted cosmologist on this subject. The book is titled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss that you may want to read if you are really interested in this idea.

I haven't read it myself because I understand that it is written for the general public and I have found other "science" books written for that audience to be disappointing... But you may enjoy it.

Link Here:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/universe-from-nothing-lawrence-krauss/1102495919/2679874719691?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_New+Marketplace+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP164951&gclid=Cj0KCQjwjN7YBRCOARIsAFCb9342umZmDhVTJbrnX9BSa8HuvgJtyH15s_tzcobnMFqK0RWT2GEEsksaAq60EALw_wcB

 

[Random Person]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

I just happened to remember that there is a book written by a noted cosmologist on this subject. The book is titled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss that you may want to read if you are really interested in this idea.

I haven't read it myself because I understand that it is written for the general public and I have found other "science" books written for that audience to be disappointing... But you may enjoy it.

Link Here:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/universe-from-nothing-lawrence-krauss/1102495919/2679874719691?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_New+Marketplace+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP164951&gclid=Cj0KCQjwjN7YBRCOARIsAFCb9342umZmDhVTJbrnX9BSa8HuvgJtyH15s_tzcobnMFqK0RWT2GEEsksaAq60EALw_wcB

It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it.

You should tell him about your farting goat.