"God" is a tyrant.

[ding]

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

 

[Czernobog]

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

 

[ding]

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

Do you mean other than knowing that the laws of nature existed before space and time?

 

[Czernobog]

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

Do you mean other than knowing that the laws of nature existed before space and time?

No one knows that. Please present one credible scientist who claims that the laws of nature existed before the universe, and has evidence of such.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

Do you mean other than knowing that the laws of nature existed before space and time?

No one knows that. Please present one credible scientist who claims that the laws of nature existed before the universe, and has evidence of such.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Leon Lederman and Alexander Vilenkin. I pretty sure Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking too.

 

[Czernobog]

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

Do you mean other than knowing that the laws of nature existed before space and time?

No one knows that. Please present one credible scientist who claims that the laws of nature existed before the universe, and has evidence of such.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Leon Lederman and Alexander Vilenkin. I pretty sure Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking too.

Quote, any one of them, with a reference citing, of them saying that the laws of nature preexist reality.

Now, Hawking, actually did, but that is because Hawking argued a cyclical universe, which you deny You can't have it both ways. Either we exist in a cyclical universe, in which case, yes, the laws of nature pre-date this universe, or we do not, in which case, the laws of the universe came into being when the universe did. You choose. Same with both Lederman, and Velenkin. You want to accept their premise of pre-existing laws of nature, without accepting the condition that created that premise. It doesn't work that way. If you want to discard the cyclical universe, but keep their pre-existing laws of nature, then you need to find another, scientifically sound way to explain those pre-existing laws of nature. Otherwise, you don't get to point to them as your source, because they never said what you are saying.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yet another satanic thread.

Lucifer (his Latin name) is the tyrant.

 

[ding]

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

Do you mean other than knowing that the laws of nature existed before space and time?

No one knows that. Please present one credible scientist who claims that the laws of nature existed before the universe, and has evidence of such.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Leon Lederman and Alexander Vilenkin. I pretty sure Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking too.

Quote, any one of them, with a reference citing, of them saying that the laws of nature preexist reality.

Now, Hawking, actually did, but that is because Hawking argued a cyclical universe, which you deny You can't have it both ways. Either we exist in a cyclical universe, in which case, yes, the laws of nature pre-date this universe, or we do not, in which case, the laws of the universe came into being when the universe did. You choose. Same with both Lederman, and Velenkin. You want to accept their premise of pre-existing laws of nature, without accepting the condition that created those conditions. Sorry, you don't get to just pick, and choose which parts of a theory you like.

No. Hawking did not argue a cyclical universe. No one is arguing a cyclical universe anymore. That theory is dead. The theory of inflation, which is what I have based my statements on is super string theory. Hawking endorses it. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[ding]

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like (post #325) as well as a description of the process (post # 321).

 

[Czernobog]

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

 

[ding]

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is the best theory for describing the physical world and requires independent laws. Laws which do not violate the laws of conservation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is the best theory for describing the physical world and requires independent laws. Laws which do not violate the laws of conservation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You get that you are circling right back around to the very theory that I presented over a month ago, that proves, though the use of quantum material, that the universe is capable of being endlessly inflating, contracting, and restarting, no God necessary, right? and, now you're attempting to use it to prove God?!?!?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

That quote is very poetic. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the poetry.

 

[ding]

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is the best theory for describing the physical world and requires independent laws. Laws which do not violate the laws of conservation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You get that you are circling right back around to the very theory that I presented over a month ago, that proves, though the use of quantum material, that the universe is capable of being endlessly inflating, contracting, and restarting, no God necessary, right? and, now you're attempting to use it to prove God?!?!?

If this is what you believed then you got it horribly wrong. It is not eternal into the past. It is not a cyclical universe. Maybe you should have watched the video's I posted because as near as I can remember you were arguing that the universe did not have a beginning. Eternal into the future does not mean eternal into the past.

 

[ding]

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

That quote is very poetic. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the poetry.

Expert testimony is evidence. Inflation theory is evidence. Observations which validate the theory are evidence. General relativity is evidence. It has been proven in a myriad of ways. Where is your evidence?

 

[Czernobog]

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is the best theory for describing the physical world and requires independent laws. Laws which do not violate the laws of conservation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You get that you are circling right back around to the very theory that I presented over a month ago, that proves, though the use of quantum material, that the universe is capable of being endlessly inflating, contracting, and restarting, no God necessary, right? and, now you're attempting to use it to prove God?!?!?

If this is what you believed then you got it horribly wrong. It is not eternal into the past. It is not a cyclical universe. Maybe you should have watched the video's I posted because as near as I can remember you were arguing that the universe did not have a beginning. Eternal into the future does not mean eternal into the past.

Except that very quantum material that does not violate the law of conversion, is exactly why it can be eternal, both ways. Your whole argument, is that there is not enough energy for an eternally inflating, and contracting universe. However, you at a quantum level so long as it does not violate the conservation laws (as in massless particles), then there is a non-zero probability of occurrence. In other words, a constantly inflating, and contracting universe has a non-zero probability of occurrence.

 

[Czernobog]

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

That quote is very poetic. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the poetry.

Expert testimony is evidence. Inflation theory is evidence. Observations which validate the theory are evidence. General relativity is evidence. It has been proven in a myriad of ways. Where is your evidence?

Okay. I stand corrected. The laws of physics, they say, just were. The problem is that those same physicists that you are so proudly quoting, have said that this is exactly why God was not necessary. God didn't need to jumpstart the universe. The laws just were, and so, it happened. Still, no. God. Necessary.