The Cosmos: Created , not by chance.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by Everest:
** Jeez, sorry, my mistake :)**

Um. . . wrong sock puppet? Why are you responding for “Pashley”?

[pldennison]

Were abiogenesis true, we should be able to replicate it at will.

Exactly why? Do you think we have the ability to replicate at will every natural process we know to be true?

[Scylla]

CB:

Shucks again. You said:

“The notion that everything created itself out of nothing holds no appeal for me
because it does not make sense”

I thought we just had this discussion. You expressed appreciation at my efforts to explain the science to you, thought that it COULD make sense, but didn’t yet understand the science.

You admitted that you don’t yet understand the argument and wish to research it before accepting it. That seems like a reasonable stance.

Just a few posts later you make an argument against a self-creating universe which you admitted you don’t yet understand, and thereby could not accept.

If you don’t yet understand it, how can you reasonably hope to argue against it?

This does not seem like a very fair stance.

It is also particularly irksome to me and perhaps others who have made a great deal of effort to achieve this understanding to have it undermined by someone who admits they are not qualified to comment on it.

I hope you see my point in the spirit it was offered.

---

“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar

[WallyM7]

I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but get a load of this:

Oh, wait, we’re only descended from apes.

The sheer force of this moronic statement compelled me to remark on it.

Please, continue with your discussion.

[David_B]

CalifLiar said:

David B., on the other hand is quite willing to allow any sort of wild speculation as long as it excludes any possibility of intelligent design.

And you wonder why I’ve branded you a liar? Yet again, you post a complete untruth here.

It is clear that he, and many other posters to this board, bring preconcieved notions forward, under the guise of ‘science’, for the purpose of discrediting anyone who would suggest the possibility of a creator.

Liar. I have no problem with somebody who would suggest the possibility of a creator – ask Polycarp, Libertarian, RTFirefly, Soulfrost, and numerous other theists here. What I have a problem with are people who would rather ignore scientific evidence because they believe in the literal truth of a story book. Oh, and people who lie through their teeth at every opportunity. You fall into both categories.

I am simply requesting that people be honest with regard to their predispositions. David B is a prolific ‘science’ writer for Cecil’s columns. He should disclose his anti-theism at the outset.

Except that I am not an “anti-theist,” so there is nothing to disclose. When will you quit lying? You have the nerve to act like other people aren’t being honest? Puh-lease.

What I have a big problem with is the childish arrogance displayed by the David B’s of the world who assert than any belief system other than their own is nothing more than stupidity and ought to be held to ridicule. That particular opinion indicates a complete lack of objectivity and only serves to promote ignorance and intolerance.

Except that you are, again, lying. I have never asserted anything of the sort. A lot of people here have different belief systems than I do. Ask them how often I have asserted that they are stupid and held them up to ridicule. You just can’t get it through your head that I am arguing the science here, and creationist “science” simply doesn’t hold up. I’m sorry you can’t seem to handle this fact, but either deal with it or move on – lying is a sin in your religion, isn’t it? And to think you’re doing it on this weekend of all weekends. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Oh, and you still haven’t answered the question repeatedly posted to you, by both myself and Jon: Who has claimed that the fact that we exist proves abiogenesis, and when?

===

Satan said:

And as an experiment to show you that even the most anti-theistic person here, I will submit this qustion to David B:

Jeez, please don’t feed the trolls, man! I have enough problems with Paeshrus (love that one) and CalifLiar claiming I’m an “anti-theist”!

I say I believe in God because I have faith that He is there. I personally feel His presence. I know this with every fiber of my being. Can you prove me wrong, David?

Nope.

I am willing to bet Dave’s response will be something along the lines of, Fine.

Yup. Fine. You have faith.

Not that you really should expect this to get through to Paeshrus, of course.

[douglips]

I wrote:

If there is something beyond ‘everything’, then ‘everything’ is not Everything.

Then CalifBoomer wrote:

You swerved into the truth pashley has been talking about. This is exactly the point.

Think about it.

I tried thinking about it but my brain started to hurt. What the heck are you talking about?

Please follow these steps and tell me what you are trying to get me to ‘think about’.
[ul][li]Everything has a cause.[/li][li]Not everything can have a cause.[/li][li]Therefore, something must have no cause.[/li][li]Therefore, not everything has a cause.[/li][li]Therefore, my first premise is false.[/li][li]Therefore, I can say “If there is something beyond everything, then everything is not Everything.” Meaning that pashley’s very argument contradicted itself.[/ul][/li]Where did I go wrong? If I keep going, I end up with things like “Therefore my argument is false… Therefore my premise must really be true!! Therefore I must reevaluate the entire argument again!!” and quickly run out of processor space in my brain.

This is all like a Star Trek episode:

“Everything he says is a lie.”
“I… am… lying.”

“But if you are lying then you must be telling the truth but if you are telling the truth you must be lying but if you are lying you must be bzzzzzt pop kablamm!”

---

I’d give my left buns-cheek for a Wally sig.

[JDeMobray]

I think CalifBoomer and Pashley/Everest’s point can be summed up in the statement (Note capitalization, it’s important.):

There is Something more than everything, but that Something while still part of Everything, is not neccesarily a part of the everything that we are

• However, since that Something is completley outside of our particular everything, it is completely unprovable and for our experience may as well not exist. -

A secondary point that Pashley seems to be certain of is that while we can speculate about the origin of everything, we can’t ever understand the origin of Everything, since an origin would require time and that phenomenon only exists in everything, not Everything.

Something created everything, but not Everything since you can’t create something that exists outside of time. Also, that would require Something to create itself and in doing so, render itself a part of everything, and we know it can’t be because it isn’t.

[David_B]

I think their point can be summed up as follows:

I want to use an apparently “logical” statement to say that something cannot come from nothing when it applies to the universe. But I want to ignore same logical statement when it comes to God, because I believe that, in fact, God did come from nothing.

[Nen]

Originally posted by David B:
But I want to ignore same logical statement when it comes to God, because I believe that, in fact, God did come from nothing.

I definitely won’t disagree with the apparent lack of logic, but do you think they believe that god came from nothing or god always was? I know that the concept of god always being is a bit tricky due to a lack of a reference frame such as time, but do they necessitate that nothing preceded god’s existence?

[Czarcasm]

Brother D, why are you having trouble with the rules of the game? It’s simple:

1. Every single point you make must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

2. Everything CalifBoomer and Pashley say must be taken on faith.

3. Any criticism of their logic is called “bashing” and “trolling”

4. Any name-calling on their part is “self-defense”

Is everything clear now?

---

Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.

[JDeMobray]

It’s the same sort of “logic” you encounter in the other thread

How can politicians lie so much?

Where CalifBoomer argues that only people who believe in Christianity/Catholicism can accuse people of hypocrisy. See his response to techchick where he basically says: “Hey, I don’t care if you believe in God, unless you are MY kind of Christian, then you can’t accuse anybody of sin.”

Errrgh. . .

[David_B]

Not surprising to see the same illogic from the same person, I’m afraid…

Nen said:

I definitely won’t disagree with the apparent lack of logic, but do you think they believe that god came from nothing or god always was? I know that the concept of god always being is a bit tricky due to a lack of a reference frame such as time, but do they necessitate that nothing preceded god’s existence?

Ah, but if you provide the possibility that the universe has always existed, in the same sort of way, they reject that idea. Again, what’s good for the God is not good for the universe.

[JonF]

I want to use an apparently “logical” statement to say that something cannot come from nothing when it applies to the universe. But I want to ignore same logical statement when it comes to God, because I believe that, in fact, God did come from nothing.

Maybe it’s time to point out that pashley hasn’t researched his aargument very much. It didn’t take long for me to find the traditional method of getting around this problem, but I’ve been holding back.

Remember the OP statement was “Whatever begins to exist, has a cause for it’s coming into being.” (emphasis added). So, you simply state that the Supreme Being never began to exist; she has always existed, and therefore is exempt from causation.

Of course, this doesn’t make the overall argument any more logical …

---

jrf

[pashley]

Originally posted by David B:
**… but if you provide the possibility that the universe has always existed, in the same sort of way, they reject that idea. Again, what’s good for the God is not good for the universe.

**

I will probabley be addressing the impossibility of the cosmos having just always existing, Dave. I say “probabley”, only because Nen has already allowed the the cosmos had a beginning.

[pashley]

Originally posted by JonF:
**

Remember the OP statement was “Whatever begins to exist, has a cause for it’s coming into being.” (emphasis added). So, you simply state that the Supreme Being never began to exist; she has always existed, and therefore is exempt from causation.

Of course, this doesn’t make the overall argument any more logical …

**

I’ll be getting into that in the “Goliath” thread, Jon

[Nen]

Originally posted by pashley:
…Nen has already allowed the the cosmos had a beginning.

pashley:

In the Goliath thread, you said:

Are you agreeing, in fact, that the cosmos had a beginning?

To which I replied:

No, but if for the sake of argument you wish to establish the BB as the beginning, you may do so temporarily.

Where BB is the Big Bang. I did not state that the universe had a beginning.

Are you going to default on that debate or will you be returning there in the near future?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by pashley:

First of all, it’s none of you business.

Sure it is - you posted it in a public forum such as the SDMB. That makes it the business of anyone who reads this board.

What else did you expect? Whatever.

Esprix

Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!

[pashley]

Originally posted by Nen:
** Where BB is the Big Bang. I did not state that the universe had a beginning.

Are you going to default on that debate or will you be returning there in the near future?**

What a minute. Correct me if i am wrong, but the BB theory is how the universe began? Huh?!

No, not “defaulting”; I have been busy with my son, and won’t be posting anything there until tommorow. Is there some rush?!

[pashley]

Originally posted by Nen:
** Where BB is the Big Bang. I did not state that the universe had a beginning.

Are you going to default on that debate or will you be returning there in the near future?**

Correct me if i am wrong, but i thought the BB theory was an explanation of the universe began?!

I will be posting tommorow. I have been busy with my son these last two days

[Scylla]

Pash:

Is the BB an explantion of how the universe began?

I dunno. Maybe it will be argued that way. Another way is a Big bang, Big Crunch cycle. There are others. Check out explanation to CB on previous page.

---

“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar