Creation and so forth

[james bond]

Logic obviously suggests some things based upon limited, unverifiable evidence.

The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable. What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment. It means creation.

The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die. Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.

 

[Ringtone]

There are only two choices; the universe began or the universe has always existed.

The science is overwhelmingly in favor of the universe beginning.

As you and I know, it's not only the science that tells us this. The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics concur. As for the science, to the best of my knowledge, you and I are the only ones on this board who are even aware of the pertinent science, i.e., the various proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem.

 

[Hollie]

The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable. What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment. It means creation.

The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die. Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.

The Bible explains nothing.

 

[Hollie]

As you and I know, it's not only the science that tells us this. The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics concur. As for the science, to the best of my knowledge, you and I are the only ones on this board who are even aware of the pertinent science, i.e., the various proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem.

Religious extremists often attempt to insert metaphysics among science matters. The first principles of religious extremism involve pompous, grandiose statements where the extremist insists he alone holds some pertinent knowledge not possessed by others.

Metaphysics comes in three main flavors: philosophical systems, ideologies and religions. In their theologies. religions attempt to create philosophical structures. You might have noticed that science is not included in metaphysics. This should help you understand that metaphysics is aligned with the development of competing philosophical or religious perspectives, not science investigation. The plethora of manmade gods and the mutually incompatible forms of worship, the various humans and animals available to be offered in sacrifice to worship to those gods should give you a clue as to some elements that differentiate metaphysics from science

 

[james bond]

The Bible explains nothing.

How would you know that . Honestly, I lmao too often here.

 

[Hollie]

How would you know that . Honestly, I lmao too often here.

Uncontrollable laughter is often the sign of a mental illness, Thumpy.

 

[ding]

Thanks for that desperate dingbat dictionary definition.

Whoa, OMG, I mistakenly said "cosmological" instead of "cosmic" at one point. Horrors. What's really apparent is that you are both woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention. Pretending to somehow not be a "materialist" in this world is always truly sad. You should really get a room together and protect yourselves from exposure to broader perspectives.

You are unhinged.

 

[ding]

Thanks for that desperate dingbat dictionary definition.

Whoa, OMG, I mistakenly said "cosmological" instead of "cosmic" at one point. Horrors. What's really apparent is that you are both woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention. Pretending to somehow not be a "materialist" in this world is always truly sad. You should really get a room together and protect yourselves from exposure to broader perspectives.

Pretending to not be a a materialist? Hmmmm... Spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

You made a much bigger deal out of your error than I did. I just stated it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention? Hmmmm... how so?

I've spent over 20 years on my broader perspective. I've forgotten more about the origin questions than you ever knew.

 

[Ringtone]

Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos—whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration in toto necessarily began to exist in the finite past ex nihilo. Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.

Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.

End of discussion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

As you and I know, it's not only the science that tells us this. The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics concur. As for the science, to the best of my knowledge, you and I are the only ones on this board who are even aware of the pertinent science, i.e., the various proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem.

Oh yeah, you two are definitely the chosen ones, LOL

However, here's a well edumacated response for your bonus edification:

I can assure you I understand the subject well. It's also worth noting that Dr. Vilenkin has stated numerous times (such as in the quote I've provided above) that the theorem he worked on with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth does not prove that the Universe has a beginning. In fact, it makes no statements about the beginning of the Universe because the BVG theorem does not describe the earliest moments in the Universe's history. It's applicability does not go beyond the geodesic boundary, and nowhere in the original paper is it stated that said boundary is or must be an absolute beginning. In fact, the paper explicitly states that one can go beyond the boundary but must utilize an extension of inflationary physics.

“Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20].” – ([gr-qc/0110012] Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete)

Alan Guth has also stated that through models like eternal inflation, one can easily extend physics beyond the geodesic boundary. I'm fact, Alan Guth himself has stated that he believes the Universe is likely eternal. Also, Arvind Borde has developed models of infinite universes as well as models of Universe's with defined physics beyond the geodesic boundary. Literally none of the three original authors themselves believes that their theorem proves that the Universe has a beginning, because it doesn't. It shows that the *expansion* of the Universe has a beginning, not the entirety of the Universe itself.

Take it slow... so as not to choke on all that crow.

 

[Hollie]

Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos—whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration in toto necessarily began to exist in the finite past ex nihilo. Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.

Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.

End of discussion.

There are no incontrovertible first principles of logic or metaphysics that support claims to supernaturalism. The first principle of a valid argument is that the conclusion will be true when a valid premise is true. Religious extremists use a faulty characterization such that they define a presupposed conclusion and then construct a faulty premise derived from metaphysics

Metaphysics may suggest anything you want because ultimately there is no requirement for the conclusion to necessarily follow a logical progression of ideas from the premise.

Metaphysics is the sacred cow of ID'iot creationer ministries because magic and supernaturalism is not of science. Metaphysics is as useful as tarot card reading when introduced into the realm of science. It produces nothing of any real utility for investigating the natural world and ultimately, no requirement for 'philosophical' arguments to be true or factual.

 

[Ringtone]

Oh yeah, you two are definitely the chosen ones, LOL

However, here's a well edumacated response for your bonus edification:

Take it slow... so as not to choke on all that crow.

LOL!

You don't even realize that you just provided a link to an article that falsifies your gibberish.

By the way, the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of Vilenkin's response to Stenger on Arizona Atheist's blog is well known by those who have studied the proofs the BGV theorem. Indeed, Arizona Atheist abandoned his blog in humiliation after word got.

You obviously only read the question, not the answer, in the article you yourself cited, dummy. Read the entire article:

Thanks for forwarding this post, Rebecca! Despite its confident--indeed, we have to say, smug--tone, this atheist’s post is riddled with errors, exposing his claim to have studied cosmology “extensively” and to “understand the subject well” as just so much empty posturing. You needn’t be intimidated by his condescending assertions that “when you actually understand the cosmology, and when you actually ask real cosmologists. . . , you can see that theistic apologists exclusively misrepresent the BVG theorem.” You may be assured that I and my collaborator James Sinclair have discussed these issues personally (and carried on extensive correspondence) with not only Vilenkin, but also such prominent cosmologists as George Ellis, Christopher Isham, Donald Page, James Hartle, Robert Brout, and many others in order to ensure the accuracy of our work.[1]

Some of your friend’s mistakes are just amusing, some more serious.

For example, on the amusing end, if one is going to opine about the BGV theorem, then don’t you think one should at least get the name of the theorem right? -- the BGV theorem (for Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, in alphabetical order), not the BVG theorem. And one should cite one’s sources correctly, don’t you think? I was amazed to see an anonymous quotation (which is, in fact, from a blogger named Arizona atheist[2]) in which your friend misrepresents what Vilenkin had said to Victor Stenger about cyclic models. In my debate with Peter Millican, who (innocently) also uses this quotation, I explained that in context Vilenkin says that such cyclic models fail for other reasons to evade the beginning of the universe implied by the BGV theorem (a fact omitted by your atheist friend).[3]

More seriously, concerning the central claim from the 2003 BGV paper, as I explain in my debate with Sean Carroll and in my article “Big Bang Cosmology,”

The BGV theorem proves that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not. If not, then that boundary is the beginning of the universe. If there was something on the other side, then it will be a non-classical region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, it will be the beginning of the universe.[4]
Either way, the universe began to exist.

Therefore, your atheist friend is just misinformed when he says, “Vilenkin has stated numerous times (such as in the quote I've provided above [NB the one from Arizona atheist!]) that the theorem he worked on with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth does not prove that the Universe has a beginning.” Hmm! Here are Vilenkin’s reflections on the significance of that theorem in 2006:

The theorem proved in that paper is amazingly simple. Its proof does not go beyond high school mathematics. But its implications for the beginning of the universe are very profound. . . . With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.[5]

Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem | Reasonable Faith

Neither Susskind nor Guth nor Carroll has been able to craft a tenable model of a beginningless universe. In fact, the Carroll-Chen model advocated by Guth to evade the BGV theorem’s implications features a reversal of time’s arrow in the past, which is not merely non-physical, but implies the very beginning of the universe that Guth wanted to avoid, and Vilenkin takes him to task for it.[6]

So in 2012 Vilenkin reported: “There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”[7] Again, in 2015: “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.”[8] Again, in 2017: “Many people once again hoped that maybe on a far greater scale the universe is indeed eternal--with ancestor bubbles nucleating ad infinitum into the past. Now, however, we know that this is not possible. And once again, the beginning of the universe must be tackled head on.”[9]

Most tellingly, perhaps, Vilenkin has interacted explicitly with the kalām cosmological argument, and he does not dispute the premise that The universe began to exist. Rather he denies the first premise, that Whatever begins to exist has a cause.[10] I have responded to his argument in my article referenced in note 3.

Finally, your friend doesn’t seem to grasp that the BGV theorem’s implication that the universe began to exist is independent of our ability to describe physically the initial micro-second of the universe. As the cosmologist Charles Misner once remarked to me, “It is as though a tiny window shade were pulled over the first split-second of the existence of the universe. We don’t know what goes on behind the shade, but we know that it doesn’t come out on the other side.” Nor does your friend realize that the truth of the second premise of the kalām cosmological argument does not depend upon the universe’s beginning with a singularity.[11] Non-singular models like the famous Hartle-Hawking model feature a non-singular beginning of the universe.

So your friend has got to do much more if he is to turn back the evidence that the universe began to exist.

Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem | Reasonable Faith

Hello Dr. Craig I hope you can help me to umderstand the observation an atheist guy who studies cosmology said about the beginning of the universe and the.very fact, that christian apologists misrepresent what the BVG theorem:

www.reasonablefaith.org

Also, see:

In the Beginning Was the Beginning

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some...

now.tufts.edu

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wow, did I strike a rinse & repeat noive!

 

[Hollie]

LOL!

You don't even realize that you just provided a link to an article that falsifies your gibberish.

By the way, the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of Vilenkin's response to Stenger on Arizona Atheist's blog is well known by those who have studied the proofs the BGV theorem. Indeed, Arizona Atheist abandoned his blog in humiliation after word got.

You obviously only read the question, not the answer, in the article you yourself cited, dummy. Read the entire article:


Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem | Reasonable Faith

Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem | Reasonable Faith

Hello Dr. Craig I hope you can help me to umderstand the observation an atheist guy who studies cosmology said about the beginning of the universe and the.very fact, that christian apologists misrepresent what the BVG theorem:

www.reasonablefaith.org

Also, see:

In the Beginning Was the Beginning

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some...

now.tufts.edu

There are no 'pwoofs'' of the BGV theorem. You have learned well from the charlatan William Lane Craig that if you play fast and loose with the truth, a few of the gullible won't question the lies.

 

[Ringtone]

There are no incontrovertible first principles of logic or metaphysics that support claims to supernaturalism. The first principle of a valid argument is that the conclusion will be true when a valid premise is true. Religious extremists use a faulty characterization such that they define a presupposed conclusion and then construct a faulty premise derived from metaphysics

Metaphysics may suggest anything you want because ultimately there is no requirement for the conclusion to necessarily follow a logical progression of ideas from the premise.

Metaphysics is the sacred cow of ID'iot creationer ministries because magic and supernaturalism is not of science. Metaphysics is as useful as tarot card reading when introduced into the realm of science. It produces nothing of any real utility for investigating the natural world and ultimately, no requirement for 'philosophical' arguments to be true or factual.

Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos—whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration in toto necessarily began to exist in the finite past ex nihilo. Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.

Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.

End of discussion.

 

[Hollie]

Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos—whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration in toto necessarily began to exist in the finite past ex nihilo. Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.

Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.

End of discussion.

Repeating the falsehood that there is a 'pwoof' of the BGV theorem is simply repeating a falsehood. We can conclude that because you can offer no 'pwoof'.

Your silly 'end of discussion' slogan is the rant of a twelve year old who is suffering from hurt feelings / feelings of inadequacy.


See how that works?

 

[james bond]

Uncontrollable laughter is often the sign of a mental illness, Thumpy.

It's natural laughter which is good for you -- Laughter is good for the soul.

Too bad you aren't the laughter or joyful type. You are the grumpy.

 

[Hollie]

The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable. What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment. It means creation.

The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die. Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.

“The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die.”

Who else thinks the Jimmy Bond character is a danger to himself and others. He seems to willingly represent himself as a Cult loon, something of a wannabe Jim Jones.

 

[Hollie]

It's natural laughter which is good for you -- Laughter is good for the soul.

Too bad you aren't the laughter or joyful type. You are the grumpy.

This, from the hyper-religious loon.

There’s nothing “natural” about religious Cults.

 

[surada]

The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable. What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment. It means creation.

The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die. Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.

Not exactly.


Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does

Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does

An evolutionary biologist explains all the things you might get into an argument over

massivesci.com

Nov 22, 2020 · This distinction between evolution and creation is especially important in the context of the origin of life. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It explains how life has changed after it originated. It also explains the origin of new species, most famously described by Darwin in On the Origin of Species. It is generally accepted among evolutionary biologists that all species on Earth have