That paper doesn't seem to say anything about the Universe "coming into being from nothing". You have suggested that there is a lot of evidence: could you just describe or explain one or two pieces of evidence in your own words?
What is it you want "exactly" one or two pieces of evidence for? Sorry but I have been away from this debate for a while and it's context is not fresh in my mind.
I forgot what paper I gave you.
However the BBT pre-supposes creation ex-nihilo and the other dominant theory TGVT was summarized by Vilenkin.
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Now since the universe is defined as every natural entity there is then by substitution. It could be stated that all the evidence we have suggested everything natural had a beginning.
BTW: even if we had no science, no mountains of evidence suggesting the universe began to exist we could arrive at that conclusion because it's opposite is impossible. If you claim it did not begin to exist the you must explain away impossibility after impossibility. There are no natural infinites, there are no infinite regression chains of causation, there is no explanation for why the universe "was wound up" 15 trillions years ago and is doomed (without supernatural intervention) to win down until heat death occurs. TBGVT theory also goes on to explain why the most populate science fictions attempting to get out of a universe in need of a cause are impossible. Cracked eggs - impossible, cyclic universes- impossible, natural infinites impossible, etc... The best case anyone who wanted to wish away the finite universe we know exists would have as it's only merit the fact it cannot be proven wrong at this time. Even I don't don't have enough faith for atheism.
No, my response to
every claim is "what is the evidence?" And that SHOULD be the first response to ANY claim being made, especially when it regards science and the facts of how the Universe functions..
We have observed instances in quantum space where classical cause and effect do not apply, and we are not talking about an event which conforms to classical laws. We are talking about even that, as far as we are aware, precedes those classical laws. You cannot necessarily use the physical laws of the Universe in a coherent argument about how that same Universe started.
I do not mind requests for evidence but as I said, in essence you asked the guy who holds to a position of faith to prove things. It would be as meaningless as my asking you to prove Jesus did not dies on the cross of prove that the apostles actually stole the body. That is not how this is done in these fields. IN history, theology, and many others the argument is to best explanation.
First of all Quantum physics is in it's infancy and would not be fully understandable by either of us even if it was. For pities sake it has 10 types of frameworks at least and not only do they contradict each other but no one knows which one is true, and like string theory is not even provable if true. BTW: what are your mathematic and physics credentials. I have a degree in math and have no idea how to evaluate what scientists say about it. People us have to blindly follow the latest theories or stand in skepticism.
Second the Quantum does not posit a lack of cause and effect. In fact it includes them. Molecules do not pop into existence from nothing, there was a preexisting fluctuation in quantum energy fields which produces what we call matter. Everything in nature can be termed energy or light. Matter is simply energy with a massive density.
Atheists love to think that science contradicts faith yet every single thing they bring up to counter faith comes from the deepest possible end of the theoretical science pool. Stuff you do not understand, stuff I can barely understand. Stuff that even if true is unproven. No one on Earth fully understand the Quantum. Maybe a few people have a few pieces nailed down but there is not enough of these pieces to form any picture that would contradict Christianity. BTW: IF you wanted, get a book by Schroder called "The science of God" He is a scientist who harmonized Genesis, the BBT, and the quantum better than anyone I have ever heard. No one knows anything about to a certainty about these issues, but his explanation fit more intuitive facts than any I have seen.
No I won't, because if it is based on evidence then it isn't faith.
I most certainly is. In fact one claim to knowledge is a fact and does not require faith. The fact we think is the only certainty known to man. Everything (and I mean everything else has an element of faith in it. That is simply a brute fact. All we can do is come up with the best explanations. We can never come up with the absolute truth of the matter. At least not in this life, and if we would be able to after this life I cannot comprehend how it would be actualized but if your dealing with God then you can't rule out anything.
No it isn't. Some of us base our conclusions on the evidence - we don't make an assumption then assume the evidence fits it.
All Vilenkin said "All the evidence" points to a universe (meaning all natural entities, events, truths) began to exist (include quantum relationships. And with every experiment ever done, every observation ever made causes precede events and no natural have ever been observed and they seem to be impossible. Yet your world view contradicts these things which are confirmed without exception. You are using faith and you seem capable of it to a greater extent than I.
If you believe that, then how on earth can you make any claims about anything?
I have to repeat this every half dozen posts.
1. The actual burden of faith is the lack of a defeater.
2. However I argue to a higher standard - best explanation. A universe created out of nothing is a better explanation of the best evidence.
I hold to evidence based faith, not to certainty.
If it's not relevant, then why did you bring it up?
Don't remember the original claim I made. What I said probably was relevant, it was your response to it that was probably irrelevant.
Nice to talk with you again mortal flame. Been away from debate for a while.[/quote][/QUOTE]
