They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[steve_bank]

Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus.

And it is a false analogy. Here is why............

You said................

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

This is important..................Notice you just emotionally rejected the evidence for God's existence. Thus concluding God has no evidence. I gave you a chance to put some intellect behind your groundless rejection. You did not respond as to why you rejected the evidence. Instead you emotionally jumped to your pet meme of Santa Claus.
So....and this is key........
Your only connection to that pseudo analogy is your emotional rejection of the evidence for God.

So you're emoting that God and Santa each have no evidence......the basis of your false analogy.

Santa Claus has no evidence for his existence.
God does.................and your are emotionally rejecting the evidence.
So the commonality that your analogy rests upon only exists in your emotions.

On his PBS show Power Of Myth Joseph Cambel showerd how through all human history all myths are fundamentally tyeh same.

The John Wayne cowboy persona. Rambo in all the movies was on a Homeric journey home.

Modern Christianity is a myth based an embellished gospels with a few sound bites attributed to a person. In the early days there were multiple versions of Jesus. Not all supernatural. The basis theology you have today and the biblical cann0n came of a police consensus of competing sects at Nicea which was the beginning of the RCC and its suppression of alternative theology. The council concluded with essentially a loyalty oath to the new theology.

You probably do not know the history of the bible translation you use. Why was there a King James translation and what did it mean and the purpose it served?

 

[Rhea]

...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized [...]

Says the guy creating a kalam blah blah argument on a thread about trivck questions...

 

[Learner]

Blind faith runs deep in this one. . View attachment 19657

Believers of aliens do not believe in God or religion ... they belong in your group (atheist).

 

[Learner]

Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus. Note that the tradition of giving on Christmas actually dates back to a real person centuries' ago. A man named Nicolas who was reported to toss pouches of money to poor as he rode by. BecamemSaint Nick.

The difference is we know the origins of Sanata Claus and a real flesh and blood historical figure.

Well the santa we usually see, portrayed during Christmas is so unlike Saint NIck . He comes from the North pole , has a white beard, blue eyes and travels in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, as its said . Two individuals morphed into one. Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere, Saint Nicholas also had the title role of "Bishop" of Myra , his inspiration must therefore be Jesus.

 

[Rhea]

Blind faith runs deep in this one. . View attachment 19657

Believers of aliens do not believe in God or religion ... they belong in your group (atheist).

What is the difference between a god and an alien, tho?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere,

You probably mean the Roman Saturnalia traditions, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Blind faith runs deep in this one. . View attachment 19657

Believers of aliens do not believe in God or religion ... they belong in your group (atheist).

Um, no. Never watch Star Trek?
The ending of 'Bread and Circuses'?

Every time someone dismisses the arrogant claims of an omnipotent, onmiscient being with 'you're no god!' without explaining the difference, or why they hold a special place for 'real' gods?

 

[Learner]

What is the difference between a god and an alien, tho?

Would you believe that Prof. Dawkins thinks there's a difference? (Aliens plausible ... biblical God not at all).

You probably mean the Roman Saturnalia traditions, right?

Well no , since that would regard the 25th Dec being pagan and not biblical ...perhaps santa of the north pole too, but not Saint Nicholas although people combine the two.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well the santa we usually see, portrayed during Christmas is so unlike Saint NIck . He comes from the North pole , has a white beard, blue eyes and travels in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, as its said . Two individuals morphed into one. Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere, Saint Nicholas also had the title role of "Bishop" of Myra , his inspiration must therefore be Jesus.

A kid's faith in Santa has nothing to do with the history of Santa.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus. Note that the tradition of giving on Christmas actually dates back to a real person centuries' ago. A man named Nicolas who was reported to toss pouches of money to poor as he rode by. BecamemSaint Nick.

The difference is we know the origins of Sanata Claus and a real flesh and blood historical figure.

Well the santa we usually see, portrayed during Christmas is so unlike Saint NIck . He comes from the North pole , has a white beard, blue eyes and travels in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, as its said . Two individuals morphed into one. Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere, Saint Nicholas also had the title role of "Bishop" of Myra , his inspiration must therefore be Jesus.

Of coursem and that shows ow myths evolve. An 1800s story evolves into a host of movies in modern times with diffent stories and takes.

The underlying plot in the supernatural aspects of the gospel story existed well before the time of Jesus. I read the story in general takes the form of an action adventure fiction of the day.

A deity has an offspring with a human female. The offspring has some but not all of the deity's power, a demigod. The demigod sacrifices himself in an heroic act saving the clan or group, then goes to stay with the deity/father. In the case of Jesus he sacrificed himself for Jewish salvation. Greek mythology. The term Christ comes from the Greek. It was not used by the first Jewish followers. The term Jesus is also a general term in Jewish history.

Was the parents Jesus and Mary Christ? Not likely. The term Jesus Christ is from the Greek translation of Hebrew concepts. No one knows what the person may have been called when je lived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

Like Santa Claus the gospel tale undoubted grew out a possible historical Jesus growing in each retelling and embellished by the writers who appear to be Greek influenced.

Was there a flesh and blood Hercules who had above average strength and endurance on which the myth was based?

 

[remez]

Nice try.
You did not quote what I was responding to and trashed the context.
So I put it back in.........................

The first premise, "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" assumes the desired conclusion.

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
How does that assume anything?

It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.

...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized that your original special pleading counter failed to even scratch the Kalam.

but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.

I agree. That concept is a logical implication of the law of causality.

The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.

No it is a theologically neutral premise that can be supported with science and philosophy. Nothing is assumed.

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning.

I did not assert that any cosmological model claims a beginning. I do assert that FROM the most plausible SBBM one can most plausibly infer that the universe began to exist. I do assert that from the BGV theorem one can do the same. Thus all of your other wildly speculated cosmological models desiring an eternal past are far far far less plausible than the SBBM.
again................

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models

..... note what you are actually conceding there. In one sentence you are claiming no evidence but in the next conceding the possible evidence. Cool.

I gave you a link to scientific papers from scientists who disagree and support that disagreement with a model that is so far standing up to scrutiny.

OH Really? Just how does the CCC avoid the BGV theorem. That is a test. Let's see if YOU can get beneath the pop science. I'll be waiting.

I must add here, I admire and respect the work of Roger Penrose, I just don't see how this model is even remotely possible.

So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.

“Therefore the universe has a cause.” …is the deductive conclusion that logically follows from the premises. If you wish to challenge the logic or the plausibility of the premises then go for it. But emotionally calling them assumptions is what is unsupported.

No, is is a conclusion that follows from 'wishful thinking' premises.

Again your new premature conclusion there rests upon your new attempts above to counter the argument. Your counters again failed. In a couple instances you actually seemed to concede more to my position. If you think that my counters to your counters were insufficient then show me.
But so far............. You have yet counter either premise or the logic.

Note I did not simply deny your counters I destroyed them.

Let me try to shorten this up.............

Until those premises can be supported by something other than faith, they are nothing but wishful thinking.

Your last post was replete with similar INFERENCE there.
However..................
I have supported p1 with logic and scientific observation not faith. I supported p2 with the SBBM, the BGV and could easily add ........

Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist.

........ and none of it would matter. For you have this childish trick to turn it into wishful thinking.

So how is it you can still INFER I have no evidence and only faith...............Arbitrary Skepticism. Yeah I know, I should add the word System to that and abbreviate.
But......
According to your Arbitrary Skepticism any theist rationally reasoning from the scientific evidence can do so......... if and only if...... the theist has ........absolute certainty. After all "knowbody knows."…….and you are the virtuous king of ignorance.

For example..... If I were to rationally reason that the SBBM and BGV plausibly INFERS a beginning (like some of the leading atheistic cosmologists) then your arbitrary skepticism simply equates my inference to a leap of blind faith, because I don't have absolute certainty. You can simply separate me from the evidence by eliminating any and all INFERENCE with your arbitrary skeptical standard of "absolute certainty" / "knowbody knows".

I'm not allowed to rationally infer……..
But you......oh.........YOU with your blessed ignorance can INFER that I have no evidence.

You can INFER I only have wishful thinking.
You get to INFER anything you want because "knowbody knows" does not apply to you.
You can certainly INFER without absolute certainty....here........

I know for theists "we don't know' is an anathema

Someone who claims to know stops searching.

Someone who believes not only stops searching but also denys contrary evidence.

Until those premises can be supported by something other than faith, they are nothing but wishful thinking.

Your skepticism is arbitrary and overtly unreasonable.
You infer all the time without absolute certainty yet separate the theist from plausible inference with your arbitrary absolute certainty.

Thus your criticisms regarding the Kalam at the moment are of no effect and can be dismissed.

We can't even discuss the evidence b/c you have emotionally decided I'm not allowed to have any.

Thank you for helping me to finally see that. You made it all so clear.

 

[remez]

...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized [...]

Says the guy creating a kalam blah blah argument on a thread about trivck questions...

Nice Cry……….

I created nothing.
Steve asserted Kalam failed.
I asked a non-trick question directly in YOUR context….

An interesting observation about debate and the scientific method...


When using logic, reason and the scientific method, no one can trick you into a corner. If they try, either your logic stands up, or it doesn't. If your logic is sound, their Columbo-questioning is exposed as not relevant or not within the boundaries of discussion. If the question, or "trick question" that forces you to make a stand or show your hand is within the boundaries of the original claim, then you, the original claimant, have the privilege of learning something new and realizing your claim is not valid.


It's amazingly powerful, and amazingly uplifting to know that your claim has withstood debate.

But I find it very often that faith-based claims will not subject themselves to this process. Faith -based lifestyles will not compete on this turf. The claimants want to make their claim and end the conversation right then and there.

It is very frequent in those faith-based discussions that claimants will refuse to answer questions that they feel are "tricks" or "traps" with complete lack of comprehension that no one is trying to "trick" or "trap" them, they are only trying to understand the basis for the claim and whether it stands up to logical inquiry.


And for some reason, faith-based people feel that logical inquiry is somehow a "trick" or a 'trap"


Curious, isn't it?

…and guess what? I kid you not.

He ran off the Santa. And he is still sitting in his lapse of reason.

It was amazingly uplifting.

Thank you for providing the opportunity.

 

[remez]

Is it possible for a Christen to question the creation story along with Adam and Eve?

I do.

A general response goes something like this. A somewhat circular argument.

How do you know the bible is true? Because god inspired it.
How do you know god exists? Because god is in the bible.
OK but how do you know the bible is true? Because god inspired it.....

I agree with you that would be completely stupid.

Modern Christianity is a myth based an embellished gospels with a few sound bites attributed to a person.

That is a myth of modern atheism based on a distortion of the evidence.

Why was there a King James translation and what did it mean and the purpose it served?

Not my version. But I’m in the mood to be amused…. so enlighten me with your version.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nice try.
You did not quote what I was responding to and trashed the context.
So I put it back in.........................

...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized that your original special pleading counter failed to even scratch the Kalam.

but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.

I agree. That concept is a logical implication of the law of causality.

The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.

No it is a theologically neutral premise that can be supported with science and philosophy. Nothing is assumed.

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning.

I did not assert that any cosmological model claims a beginning. I do assert that FROM the most plausible SBBM one can most plausibly infer that the universe began to exist. I do assert that from the BGV theorem one can do the same. Thus all of your other wildly speculated cosmological models desiring an eternal past are far far far less plausible than the SBBM.
again................

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models

..... note what you are actually conceding there. In one sentence you are claiming no evidence but in the next conceding the possible evidence. Cool.

I gave you a link to scientific papers from scientists who disagree and support that disagreement with a model that is so far standing up to scrutiny.

OH Really? Just how does the CCC avoid the BGV theorem. That is a test. Let's see if YOU can get beneath the pop science. I'll be waiting.

I must add here, I admire and respect the work of Roger Penrose, I just don't see how this model is even remotely possible.

So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.

“Therefore the universe has a cause.” …is the deductive conclusion that logically follows from the premises. If you wish to challenge the logic or the plausibility of the premises then go for it. But emotionally calling them assumptions is what is unsupported.

No, is is a conclusion that follows from 'wishful thinking' premises.

Again your new premature conclusion there rests upon your new attempts above to counter the argument. Your counters again failed. In a couple instances you actually seemed to concede more to my position. If you think that my counters to your counters were insufficient then show me.
But so far............. You have yet counter either premise or the logic.

Note I did not simply deny your counters I destroyed them.

Let me try to shorten this up.............

Until those premises can be supported by something other than faith, they are nothing but wishful thinking.

Your last post was replete with similar INFERENCE there.
However..................
I have supported p1 with logic and scientific observation not faith. I supported p2 with the SBBM, the BGV and could easily add ........

Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist.

........ and none of it would matter. For you have this childish trick to turn it into wishful thinking.

So how is it you can still INFER I have no evidence and only faith...............Arbitrary Skepticism. Yeah I know, I should add the word System to that and abbreviate.
But......
According to your Arbitrary Skepticism any theist rationally reasoning from the scientific evidence can do so......... if and only if...... the theist has ........absolute certainty. After all "knowbody knows."…….and you are the virtuous king of ignorance.

For example..... If I were to rationally reason that the SBBM and BGV plausibly INFERS a beginning (like some of the leading atheistic cosmologists) then your arbitrary skepticism simply equates my inference to a leap of blind faith, because I don't have absolute certainty. You can simply separate me from the evidence by eliminating any and all INFERENCE with your arbitrary skeptical standard of "absolute certainty" / "knowbody knows".

I'm not allowed to rationally infer……..
But you......oh.........YOU with your blessed ignorance can INFER that I have no evidence.

You can INFER I only have wishful thinking.
You get to INFER anything you want because "knowbody knows" does not apply to you.
You can certainly INFER without absolute certainty....here........

I know for theists "we don't know' is an anathema

Someone who claims to know stops searching.

Someone who believes not only stops searching but also denys contrary evidence.

Until those premises can be supported by something other than faith, they are nothing but wishful thinking.

Your skepticism is arbitrary and overtly unreasonable.
You infer all the time without absolute certainty yet separate the theist from plausible inference with your arbitrary absolute certainty.

Thus your criticisms regarding the Kalam at the moment are of no effect and can be dismissed.

We can't even discuss the evidence b/c you have emotionally decided I'm not allowed to have any.

Thank you for helping me to finally see that. You made it all so clear.

Discussing the evidence and attempting to make sense of it is what science is all about. Cherry picking specific parts of data that can be colored to support ones belief while ignoring the parts of the data that contradict ones belief is blind faith. You cite a couple cosmological models but apparently only accept what you like in them while ignoring anything what you don't like.

The premises in that syllogism are a major part of what cosmologists are trying to understand so they are not "known truths". Many cosmologists offer models that directly contradict P2 but then there is no universally accepted cosmology so "the universe having a beginning" is certainly not a 'known truth'.

Syllogisms that rely on statements of belief as premises rather than known truths are nothing but arguments from ignorance.

The shame is that you apparently think truth is found by cherry picking or inventing 'facts' that support a preconceived belief rather than looking at data, formulating a theory to explain the data, then trying to find any data that would disprove the explanation. If such data is found then that explanation dropped and a new explanation derived to include the new data, then this one tested by looking for more data ....

Yes, I understand that you really, really believe that the universe had a beginning but then there are a hell of a lot of people who's lifelong career as cosmologists has been an attempt to understand such things that either admit to not knowing or disagree with you.

 

[Rhea]

What is the difference between a god and an alien, tho?

Would you believe that Prof. Dawkins thinks there's a difference? (Aliens plausible ... biblical God not at all).

Would you believe I was asking for your opinion, not Dawkins’ ?

 

[steve_bank]

I forget who said that an advances technology would appear as magic and supernatural to less developed cultures. Cuvered in the Star Trek saga.

Feynman was part of the science committee who investigated the UFO evidence around the 60s-70s. He said ET is possible but not probable.

There are alien visitation shows now on Jesus being an ET sent to guide humanity. Why not?

 

[steve_bank]

I do.

I agree with you that would be completely stupid.

Modern Christianity is a myth based an embellished gospels with a few sound bites attributed to a person.

That is a myth of modern atheism based on a distortion of the evidence.

Why was there a King James translation and what did it mean and the purpose it served?

Not my version. But I’m in the mood to be amused…. so enlighten me with your version.

Another weak attempt at turning the table. Atheists can reject dirties for any number of reasons. The most common is rejecting the creation story and all the supernatural elements of the bible as fabrication without any objective evidence. Including the resurrection. The foundation of Christian faith, without faith of the resurrection in the gospels then rhere is no hope of eternal life.

So if you reject the creation story what do you accept and do not and why? Do you have a special insight or god talks to you?

 

[remez]

Discussing the evidence and attempting to make sense of it is what science is all about.

Of course. But bigger still that is what reasoning is all about. Not all reasoning is scientific reasoning. For example: Your reasoning method of arbitrary skepticism is not scientific.

Cherry picking specific parts of data that can be colored to support ones belief while ignoring the parts of the data that contradict ones belief is blind faith. You cite a couple cosmological models but apparently only accept what you like in them while ignoring anything what you don't like.

False accusation. I have cherry picked nothing. Present your evidence.

There is only one model that is plausible. And when I say plausible in this context I mean scientifically plausible. The other models mentioned were offered up by others to counter p2. I simply pointed out their SCIENETIFIC shortcomings. No cherry picking. No theology required.

Now if my factual criticisms of those models in defense of why I believe that the SBBM is best model is what you are referring to as cherry picking…..you need to go back and learn what cherry picking means.

At this point I can only guess what you meant because you didn’t have the decency to present any evidence along with your false charge.

The premises in that syllogism are a major part of what cosmologists are trying to understand so they are not "known truths".

P1 is a basic of science.

P2 Of course they are trying to understand, but does that mean we can’t infer anything from what we have. An expanding universe would to most reasonable minds infer a finite past. Einstein had the same reaction. Lots of additional evidence supports that.

So what is it we don’t now?

How it happened.

But one can be pretty sure that it did happen. And that in itself has further implications.

I know I’m a theist and with your arbitrary skepticism, that all of what I just reasoned is emotionally dismissed as wishful thinking b/c I don’t have absolute certainty. So you can save yourself the embarrassment and not repeat it.

Many cosmologists offer models that directly contradict P2 but then there is no universally accepted cosmology so "the universe having a beginning" is certainly not a 'known truth'.

Of course they do. But you now seem to be adding a new restriction to your arbitrary skepticism, now it seems there has to be universal consensus. Good Luck.

The rest of us not uninhibited by arbitrary skepticism can reasonably understand WHY there is only one model called the STANDARD big Bang model.

Syllogisms that rely on statements of belief as premises rather than known truths are nothing but arguments from ignorance.

Is that a known truth?

The shame is that you apparently think truth is found by cherry picking or inventing 'facts' that support a preconceived belief rather than looking at data, formulating a theory to explain the data, then trying to find any data that would disprove the explanation.

That is the second time you have leveled that serious charge as fact without any evidence. Have some integrity and present some evidence. Show me where I made up the facts.

If such data is found then that explanation dropped and a new explanation derived to include the new data, then this one tested by looking for more data ....

Snore…..

Yes, I understand that you really, really believe that the universe had a beginning but then there are a hell of a lot of people who's lifelong career as cosmologists has been an attempt to understand such things that either admit to not knowing or disagree with you.

So what does that really mean?
I can quote you leading atheistic cosmologists that claim time began and that the universe had a beginning.
What would that mean to you?
Aren’t they inferring from ignorance?

Don’t forget YOU SHOULD present your cherry picking and fact invention evidence.

 

[remez]

I do.

I agree with you that would be completely stupid.

That is a myth of modern atheism based on a distortion of the evidence.

Not my version. But I’m in the mood to be amused…. so enlighten me with your version.

Another weak attempt at turning the table. Atheists can reject dirties for any number of reasons. The most common is rejecting the creation story and all the supernatural elements of the bible as fabrication without any objective evidence. Including the resurrection. The foundation of Christian faith, without faith of the resurrection in the gospels then rhere is no hope of eternal life.

So if you reject the creation story what do you accept and do not and why? Do you have a special insight or god talks to you?

parsed...........

Atheists can reject dirties for any number of reasons.

Just buy a better detergent.

The most common is rejecting the creation story and all the supernatural elements of the bible as fabrication without any objective evidence

You’re probably right that is the most common.

So if you reject the creation story what do you accept and do not and why? Do you have a special insight or god talks to you?

I didn’t say I rejected it. I admitted I questioned it. HUGE difference. That "rejection" was a fabrication of your dishonesty…Note how you left my response of “I do” hanging in response to your unquoted question. A question you dishonesty altered…….see…..

Is it possible for a Christen to question the creation story along with Adam and Eve?

I do.

Don’t you guys preach you can be moral without God? Well?

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course. But bigger still that is what reasoning is all about. Not all reasoning is scientific reasoning. For example: Your reasoning method of arbitrary skepticism is not scientific.

False accusation. I have cherry picked nothing. Present your evidence.

There is only one model that is plausible. And when I say plausible in this context I mean scientifically plausible. The other models mentioned were offered up by others to counter p2. I simply pointed out their SCIENETIFIC shortcomings. No cherry picking. No theology required.

Now if my factual criticisms of those models in defense of why I believe that the SBBM is best model is what you are referring to as cherry picking…..you need to go back and learn what cherry picking means.

At this point I can only guess what you meant because you didn’t have the decency to present any evidence along with your false charge.

You offer a good example. You claim to rely on the Big Bang Theory as support and yet the theory says absolutely nothing about the universe beginning. It describes the current expansion of the universe. You accept the expansion and ignore that it does not describe a beginning. Extrapolation can only evidence a denser universe in the past. Your belief that it describes a beginning is nothing but unfounded insertion of your faith. Or is it that you don't really know what the theory is and are relying on Pop. Sci. articles designed so elementary schoolers can form some sort of mental image?

The Big Bang Theory is fairly basic. The other theories offered essentially are only expansions on that model trying to model further than the 'STANDARD model'. You are likely thinking of the 'Big Band Plus Inflation model' which adds a description of a possible inflationary period intended to offer a solution to one of the BBTs serious problems but, even though it offers a solution to one of the problems, it creates quite a few other problems. The Cyclic models are attempts to expand the BBT model much, much more.

The premises in that syllogism are a major part of what cosmologists are trying to understand so they are not "known truths".

P1 is a basic of science.

P2 Of course they are trying to understand, but does that mean we can’t infer anything from what we have. An expanding universe would to most reasonable minds infer a finite past. Einstein had the same reaction. Lots of additional evidence supports that.

Absolutely, inferences can be made and they are but different professionals make different inferences. Inferences are not knowledge but derived from application of biases. Your bias clearly shows. The bias of others that disagree with your bias also show. Essentially it is opinion (ignorance of truth), not known truth.

So what is it we don’t now?

How it happened.

But one can be pretty sure that it did happen. And that in itself has further implications.

Not at all. You can believe that it did happen, based primarily on faith. You seem to have a real problem distinguishing between belief and knowledge.

I know I’m a theist and with your arbitrary skepticism, that all of what I just reasoned is emotionally dismissed as wishful thinking b/c I don’t have absolute certainty. So you can save yourself the embarrassment and not repeat it.

Many cosmologists offer models that directly contradict P2 but then there is no universally accepted cosmology so "the universe having a beginning" is certainly not a 'known truth'.

Of course they do. But you now seem to be adding a new restriction to your arbitrary skepticism, now it seems there has to be universal consensus. Good Luck.

The rest of us not uninhibited by arbitrary skepticism can reasonably understand WHY there is only one model called the STANDARD big Bang model.

I bring up that there are many models to illustrate that the universe is not understood (even though you keep claiming certain knowledge for yourself). The reason that the standard big bang model is called STANDARD is that it is currently the most popular not because anyone thinks it is necessarily fully correct. In fact it is known to have several serious flaws.

Syllogisms that rely on statements of belief as premises rather than known truths are nothing but arguments from ignorance.

Is that a known truth?

Absolutely. In fact arguments based on belief rather than knowledge is the definition of 'argument from ignorance'.

The shame is that you apparently think truth is found by cherry picking or inventing 'facts' that support a preconceived belief rather than looking at data, formulating a theory to explain the data, then trying to find any data that would disprove the explanation.

That is the second time you have leveled that serious charge as fact without any evidence. Have some integrity and present some evidence. Show me where I made up the facts.

I did exactly that a bit further up in this post.

If such data is found then that explanation dropped and a new explanation derived to include the new data, then this one tested by looking for more data ....

Snore…..

Yes, I understand that you really, really believe that the universe had a beginning but then there are a hell of a lot of people who's lifelong career as cosmologists has been an attempt to understand such things that either admit to not knowing or disagree with you.

So what does that really mean?
I can quote you leading atheistic cosmologists that claim time began and that the universe had a beginning.
What would that mean to you?
Aren’t they inferring from ignorance?

Is that supposed to be some sort of claim that atheists believe that anything any other atheist says is deeply thought out and correct? You can't really be that ignorant.

Don’t forget YOU SHOULD present your cherry picking and fact invention evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

parsed...........

Atheists can reject dirties for any number of reasons.

Just buy a better detergent.

The most common is rejecting the creation story and all the supernatural elements of the bible as fabrication without any objective evidence

You’re probably right that is the most common.

So if you reject the creation story what do you accept and do not and why? Do you have a special insight or god talks to you?

I didn’t say I rejected it. I admitted I questioned it. HUGE difference. That "rejection" was a fabrication of your dishonesty…Note how you left my response of “I do” hanging in response to your unquoted question. A question you dishonesty altered…….see…..

Is it possible for a Christen to question the creation story along with Adam and Eve?

I do.

Don’t you guys preach you can be moral without God? Well?

My view is that human morality is based on a consensus. Gays were once the lowest creature on the planer in the USA, Slowly over time the view shifted to a majority supporting gays. Over the last 30 years or so Strong Christian Evangelical anti Semitism has shofted to being brothers with Jews.

The problem with most Christians is they practice slectve scriptural morality. The only item from Leviticus taken is anti gat.

Clealry Christ in the gospels reinforced the progibition against divorce, yet many Christians divorce. Clearly sex outside of moralmarriage is banned.

The Christian view is that the lack of religious bible based absolute morality leads to chaos. Clearly not the case.
Our vocal Christian bible thumping politicians are about as duplicitous, dishonest, and corrupt as can be. Their so called morality is leading us into serious trouble.