Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:59 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 11:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... you have to explain how something that is not rational can cause an effect that is rational. You must explain how chaos can give rise to order. Inductive reasoning would argue against what you have said. Irrationality does not give rise to rationality anymore than non-being gives rise to being, non-life to life.

Yet this is what scientists observe, can test for and reproduce.

The ability to make irrational choices is required for rational behaviour.

Life can arise from non-life

Order can come from Chaos.

I have already explained why ability to make irrational choices is required for rational behaviour but I shall put it more succinctly. Irrational preferences solve what's called the frame problem. This arbitrarily reduces the search space so that action-selection can take place. An agent has multiple drives and needs but only one physical body. Neurochemicals act as a gain control to select between different groups of neurons. This results in effective management of emotional drives within an agent and gracefully arbitrates between the competing needs of exploration and exploitation.

I do not doubt that humans can act irrationally. I do not doubt that people can believe things for emotional reasons.

I am taking issue with your statement that the brain is irrational.

I also take issue with you dismissing a woman's coming to accept the Christian worldview as an irrational act on the basis that she may have felt a certain way emotionally about the matter.

This is awfully close to committing the genetic fallacy of saying that a belief is false because of how it originates.

She may have had an emotional response in becoming a Christian. It does not follow, that therefore this was an irrational decision.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 12:46 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 12:50 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Dr. Ordway's lecture
It also does not follow that it therefore was a rational decision.

You haven't actually been reading Mathilda's posts, have you? You're just sort of skimming them, and softballing a response.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
24-05-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:52 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 11:44 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Chaos gives rise to order through entropy in an open system. Keep learning.

Do we along with our brains exist in an open system?

Yes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 12:02 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 11:52 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do we along with our brains exist in an open system?

Yes.

We live in an open system?

Are you positive?

"According to physics, all of the matter and energy in the universe now existed in some form at the Big Bang."-

Kelly Chipps (AKA nuclear.kelly)
Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Physics
Colorado School of Mines

"According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes going on in a closed system tend to a state of disorder. For example, if we had a bottle with a closed vacuum inside and we were to introduce into the bottle some molecules of gas, the gas would spread itself evenly throughout the bottle. It would be impossible, virtually, for all of the molecules to cluster down into one corner of the bottle and remain, for example. The reason for this is simply because there are far many more ways for the gas molecules to be disorderly in their distribution than for them to be orderly in their distribution. Thus, according to the second law, if you have a closed system, that system will tend toward a state of disorder.

Already in the 19th century it was realized that the second law of thermodynamics implied a grim prediction for the universe. On a strictly naturalistic view of the universe, the universe is just one, gigantic, closed system, since it is all there is and there is nothing outside of it feeding more energy into it. What that seems to imply, then, is, given enough time, the universe will eventually run down, so that matter and energy will diffuse themselves evenly throughout the universe. The universe will become a featureless soup in which all matter and energy are evenly distributed and no life is possible. Once the universe reaches such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, no further significant change is possible. Scientists call this the heat death of the universe."



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z32f0b6nbi


Unless one assumes that there is something external to the universe feeding energy into it (the very thing that naturalism denies), then one cannot say that the universe is an open system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 12:52 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 12:55 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Dr. Ordway's lecture
Lol. Reasonable Faith copypasta? Really?

"Yeah but this reinforces my cognitive bias tho" is the only response you're capable of.

Craig's an intellectually dishonest fraud. Find something from a reputable source.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
24-05-2014, 12:54 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 12:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 11:52 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do we along with our brains exist in an open system?

Yes.

We exist in closed system.

Unless you believe something exists outside of and external to the universe that is feeding energy into it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 12:46 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It also does not follow that it therefore was a rational decision.

Which is precisely why you have to listen to what the woman said were her reasons for becoming a Christian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 12:57 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 12:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 12:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes.

We exist in closed system.

Unless you believe something exists outside of and external to the universe that is feeding energy into it.

Equivocating ass.

Quote:Open systems interact with what is around them and can be understood only by including an understanding of their relationship to everything else, which means that – in a closed-system sense – they can never be fully understood.

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic18/samples/

The universe doesn't qualify to be classified as an open or closed system, unless you can show what, if anything, exists outside the universe.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
24-05-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 12:16 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Things that come into existence have causes.

And how do you propose to prove that "things" haven't always existed?

This is not something I have to prove at all. You are just moving goalposts. All I have to do is demonstrate that premise 2 is more plausible than its negation.

Premise 2 support taken from my debate with Stevil:

Einstein's discovery of General Relativity is well known to those in the scientific community. It was the beginning of a string of events that led to a greater understanding of our universe. Einstein's calculations revealed that there was actually a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. Being irritated by this discovery he later introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to make them seem to point to the fact that the universe was static. This deception, which was discovered by another scientist, Alexander Friedmann, was what Einstein called: "the greatest blunder of my life".( From George Gamow, My World Line, 1970)

British cosmologist Arthur Eddington sympathized with Einstein. He stated: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me...I should like to find a loophole."( Quoted in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995, 57)

Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter and astronomer Edwin Hubble subsequently confirmed through observation that the universe indeed was expanding and that therefore the General Relativity of Einstein was true.

Lets look at some of the corroborating evidence.

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. We experience it everyday when we drive our cars. We put fuel in the tank and as the engine runs, fuel is used. When the fuel runs out the engines shuts off. Unless fuel is put in the tank, the engine will not run. The universe is this way. One day it will run out of energy. Like a flashlight loses its power if left on overnight. Since the universe is using energy that it has, it must have had a beginning, if not, it would have been eternal, but if it had been eternal, it would have run out of usable energy. The second law is tied to the first which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words it has only a finite amount of energy.

The Law of Entropy is associated with this as well. This law states that over time, nature tends to bring things to disorder, not order. Cars rust, trees rot, clothes tear and wear out, human bodies age etc. etc.
If a wound up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up. Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to such a wound up clock. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York, Norton, 1978, 48)

Arthur Eddington understands all to well the implications of this and anyone who would attempt to refute the Second Law when he states:
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World 1928, chapter 4)

2. The universe is expanding. The recent discoveries categorized in the "Big Bang" show us that the universe is expanding. Astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed what astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher had been researching in the early 1900's. That space itself is expanding is a scientifically proven fact confirmed by atheist British author Anthony Kenny. He wrote: " According to the Big Bang Theory, the whole matter of the universe began to exist at a particular time in the remote past. A proponent of such a theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing. (Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence, New York: Shocken, 1969, 66)

3. Radiation from the afterglow of the explosion of the Big Bang was detected in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in New Jersey. This is technically called cosmic background radiation.
Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

4. Variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation which enable matter to come together by gravitational attraction into galaxies was discovered by COBE, a satellite that in 1992 startled the scientific world by showing that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. In fact, the ripples are so exact (down to one part in one hundred thousand) that astronomer George Smoot called them the "machining marks from the creation of the universe" and the "finger-prints of the maker."(Heeren, Show Me God, 168)

Stephen Hawking says of this discovery that it is: "the most important discovery of the century, if not all time."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

George Smoot again states with regards to these findings: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

Astrophysicist Michael Turner claims: "The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

The infrared pictures taken by COBE point to the existence of matter from the very early universe that would ultimately form into the galaxies as they exist today. Smoot called this matter "seeds". Pictures of these Galaxy Seeds can be found at COBE's website: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across 1/3 of the known universe. That is approximately 10,000,000,000 light years across!

5. Einstein's General Relativity has been verified to an accuracy of five decimal places. General Relativity demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter and shows that the three are co-relative.
Before speaking of the conclusion of the Cosmological argument, let us take a look at some of the views of scientists today on the beginning of the universe.

From atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)


From agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow:

"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)


"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."( Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University)


"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." (CalTech)


"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." (Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University)


"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." (Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan)


"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan)


"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." (University of Illinois)


"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." (Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University)


"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." (Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University)


"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." (Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles)


"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." (Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University)


"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)


From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:03 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 01:06 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 12:59 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 12:16 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  And how do you propose to prove that "things" haven't always existed?

Premise 2 support taken from my debate with Stevil:

Einstein's discovery of General Relativity is well known to those in the scientific community. It was the beginning of a string of events that led to a greater understanding of our universe. Einstein's calculations revealed that there was actually a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. Being irritated by this discovery he later introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to make them seem to point to the fact that the universe was static. This deception, which was discovered by another scientist, Alexander Friedmann, was what Einstein called: "the greatest blunder of my life".( From George Gamow, My World Line, 1970)

British cosmologist Arthur Eddington sympathized with Einstein. He stated: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me...I should like to find a loophole."( Quoted in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995, 57)

Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter and astronomer Edwin Hubble subsequently confirmed through observation that the universe indeed was expanding and that therefore the General Relativity of Einstein was true.

Lets look at some of the corroborating evidence.

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. We experience it everyday when we drive our cars. We put fuel in the tank and as the engine runs, fuel is used. When the fuel runs out the engines shuts off. Unless fuel is put in the tank, the engine will not run. The universe is this way. One day it will run out of energy. Like a flashlight loses its power if left on overnight. Since the universe is using energy that it has, it must have had a beginning, if not, it would have been eternal, but if it had been eternal, it would have run out of usable energy. The second law is tied to the first which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words it has only a finite amount of energy.

The Law of Entropy is associated with this as well. This law states that over time, nature tends to bring things to disorder, not order. Cars rust, trees rot, clothes tear and wear out, human bodies age etc. etc.
If a wound up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up. Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to such a wound up clock. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York, Norton, 1978, 48)

Arthur Eddington understands all to well the implications of this and anyone who would attempt to refute the Second Law when he states:
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World 1928, chapter 4)

2. The universe is expanding. The recent discoveries categorized in the "Big Bang" show us that the universe is expanding. Astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed what astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher had been researching in the early 1900's. That space itself is expanding is a scientifically proven fact confirmed by atheist British author Anthony Kenny. He wrote: " According to the Big Bang Theory, the whole matter of the universe began to exist at a particular time in the remote past. A proponent of such a theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing. (Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence, New York: Shocken, 1969, 66)

3. Radiation from the afterglow of the explosion of the Big Bang was detected in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in New Jersey. This is technically called cosmic background radiation.
Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

4. Variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation which enable matter to come together by gravitational attraction into galaxies was discovered by COBE, a satellite that in 1992 startled the scientific world by showing that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. In fact, the ripples are so exact (down to one part in one hundred thousand) that astronomer George Smoot called them the "machining marks from the creation of the universe" and the "finger-prints of the maker."(Heeren, Show Me God, 168)

Stephen Hawking says of this discovery that it is: "the most important discovery of the century, if not all time."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

George Smoot again states with regards to these findings: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

Astrophysicist Michael Turner claims: "The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

The infrared pictures taken by COBE point to the existence of matter from the very early universe that would ultimately form into the galaxies as they exist today. Smoot called this matter "seeds". Pictures of these Galaxy Seeds can be found at COBE's website: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across 1/3 of the known universe. That is approximately 10,000,000,000 light years across!

5. Einstein's General Relativity has been verified to an accuracy of five decimal places. General Relativity demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter and shows that the three are co-relative.
Before speaking of the conclusion of the Cosmological argument, let us take a look at some of the views of scientists today on the beginning of the universe.

From atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)


From agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow:

"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)


"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."( Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University)


"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." (CalTech)


"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." (Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University)


"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." (Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan)


"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan)


"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." (University of Illinois)


"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." (Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University)


"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." (Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University)


"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." (Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles)


"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." (Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University)


"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)


From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.

Except that wasn't your discussion.

It's a response you lifted from:
Elioenai26

http://www.christianforums.com/t7674415-...st61133506

http://www.christianforums.com/t7674415-39/

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: