watch the world's greatest physicists discuss the questions, the physics, the math, the ideas being tested about the formation of the universe..... .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2wh179kos0.
.
Who could deny the existence of factors beyond our comprehension?
This question is framed backwards, the real question is who could ACCEPT the existence of factors beyond our comprehension? We can only address the known and the knowable. We can't know an unknowable or even know if an unknowable exists - so why worry about it?
.
we can't explain something - therefore god.
checkmate atheist!.
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Touchdown!
"Having no good reason to believe something is at least one good reason not to believe it."
(I think I just debunked myself)
have you had the pleasure of hearing this doozy??
i believe it was presented at the circuit level first, it has filtered it's way down.. the poor eldub opens with this definition of the word fantasize:.
"to conceive fanciful or extravagant notions, ideas, suppositions, ect.
This sort of stuff always cracks me up. They believe in talking snakes and guys surviving inside a giant fish for three days but then turn around and say things like, "evolution is a myth"
The ironic taste of hypocrisy.
.
we can't explain something - therefore god.
checkmate atheist!.
I thought it would be evident my OP was a satrization of theist always trying to shift the BOP. Ah well, silly me . . .
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
then there is not necessarily a significant difference in complexity between a creator+universe and a universe alone.
I'm not sure why you're not getting this. Perhaps putting your premises into formal logical terms will explain it better for you
. . .
P1: Our universe (x) is complex
P2: A creator (y) would have some kind of complexity
C: Our universe plus a creator would be more complex than our universe alone (x+y>x)
. . .
Let's try another version (remember these premises are your statments):
. . .
P1: Complexity requires a creator
P2: Creators are complex
C: All creators require a creator (infinite digression)
. . .
These conclusions follow from your premises. And it's not hard to see why adding a creator only makes the problem worse. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination solve the problem of where our universe came from.
.
we can't explain something - therefore god.
checkmate atheist!.
We can't explain something - therefore God
Checkmate Atheist!
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
A thought is simply a sequence of neuronal activities acting on pathways that have already been formed, right?
No. New thoughts and new ways of thinking can change the distrabution of the dendrites. This is why the brain of a physicst is more complex than the brain of a child. The more you learn the more complex you brain becomes. New ideas form new circut pathways.
People are more complex than just their brains, but the brain is where thoughts occur.
That was the exact point that I made. Because, by your reasoning, an all powerful God would be more complex than the initial state of the universe. Postulating the existance of a God only makes the problem of complexity WORSE. Not better.
If the universe is too complex to have come from nothing than a God, which would be even more complex, would definitely not be able to come from nothing. Adding a God to the mix puts the orgins of the universe into a cycle of infinte regression - the existance of the universe must be explained by a more complex being - and that even more complex being must be explained by an even-even more complex being - and that even-even more complex being must be explained by an even-even-even more complext being - . . .
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Do you become more complicated when you have a complex thought on your mind?
Yes. Please see neuroplasticity. More importantly, people are more complex than any single idea they have.
To account for the number of throws of the dice to have US and OUR universe to happen
This is pure conjecture and is not supported by science. Without knowing how many sides are on a dice - and not knowing how often numbers repeat on that dice - there is no way to know what the odds are for rolling any particular number. Likewise, our universe is the only one we can look at so we have no way of knowing if other kinds of universes are possible. Our universe could be unlikely. Or, our universe could be the only possible kind of universe there is. We just don't know.
Some scientest think there might be a multiverse because certain branches of String Theory make that prediction. But the multiverse is NOT made up to solve or explain the likelyhood of the physics we see inside our universe.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
universal expansion derives it's energy from the void that it expands into
I'm pretty sure this is not true.
the total energy content of the universe is increasing
and this is 100% wrong.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Time and Energy are now shown to exist prior, outside our universe,
Never heard anything like this - source please?
