May all living beings attain peace.
Extraordinary as in a non-scientific view of the universe. Look for it in the “Fiction” section of your library. Rossum’s Rule applies.
Good philosophical arguments, perhaps. I would argue the reason being that philosophical claims does not need to stand up against empirical data. Instead entirely imaginary scenarios can be devised and sold when backed up by good rhetoric skills.
I would argue that the burden lies primarily on those who makes the claim that a “transcendent, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immaterial personal being exists” and not on those who say “Really? Kindly present the data supporting your thesis.” Because you claim very specific properties for this being. Which makes me ask for the data that your claim is founded on. How can then the burden lie on me?
Are you aware that what we call hydrogen and helium are composite enteties only existing under very specific conditions? Outside those conditions they no longer exist and we have plenty of examples of such conditions in this universe. The currently most accepted model for the evolution of the universe have conditions where hydrogen and helium can’t exist, yet they exist in this model. What makes you think a cyclic model would not have conditions where hydrogen and helium couldn’t exist as well as could exist?Freddy:
Just for arguments sake; suppose the cyclical universe was comprised of helium and hydrogen. It would have to mean that either helium and hydrogen had no beginning, or they did not come from anything.
Both these options seem to defy logic and reason, it’s like the magician plucking rabbits out of the hat. It’s like the circle always existed on the paper, there was never a time that circle did not exist.
Thank you! However when it comes to descriptions of the currently most accepted model for the evolution of the universe one must look beyond popular science, which sadly does a very poor job, and instead turn to more academically credible sources. The current model does not say anything about a beginning for the universe. When someone says so they either haven’t undestood the model or add their own conclusions outside what the model actually describe.
And that’s a wrap on question #1.Eric_Hyom:
No to the first.
Hardly. It may have happened by natural causes, but we (currently) lack the evidence. We also (currently) lack evidence that it happened by supernatural causes. That puts natural and supernatural causes on an equal footing: both currently lack evidence.
And a unicorn may also appear in my backyard.
And why is it not 99.991% ? how did you arrive at 99.998% ?
Thank you for confirming that the hypothesis that a deity created the material universe is “mere speculation”.
Nice try. But, we’re in the realm of science in this thread, not faith. Faith doesn’t need hypotheses or speculations or evidence to support its truths. Scientists do.
Erm… Just have a look at the thread title please. The thread covers both areas: faith and science.
Thank you again for confirming that complete lack of evidence for the creation of the material universe by any deity.
Did you miss the part that reads, “… without God”?
? If one has evidence then what need is there for faith? Now, if one has no evidence then one also has no science.
Faiths do not compete. How would such a faith competition be judged? On the absence of any supporting evidence? No. On contradictory evidence? Possibly. But that’s another thread.
I’m vaguely aware of it yes, but I can’t for my life describe it from memory. I have enough problem as it is to keep up with the whacky aspects of the current model.
