Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Walter]

If you want to address the other points I made about your desperation to slap the label "god" on pretty much anything you happen to think you might get away with at the time, or want to accept the challenge of actually defining how you think "god" is defined and come up with an argument that you can get behind, or even get back to the subject of the thread, then go ahead. However, if you're just going to continue to make a fool of yourself over this simulated universe nonsense, then you're on your own. On that subject you don't need anybody else to make it look absurd, desperate, and illogical.

Stranger ,

I knew from the start what his little game was , that's why i kept out of it , save for a couple of digs at him . And here we are , what 'dispicary'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to address the other points I made about your desperation to slap the label "god" on pretty much anything you happen to think you might get away with at the time, or want to accept the challenge of actually defining how you think "god" is defined and come up with an argument that you can get behind, or even get back to the subject of the thread, then go ahead. However, if you're just going to continue to make a fool of yourself over this simulated universe nonsense, then you're on your own. On that subject you don't need anybody else to make it look absurd, desperate, and illogical.

The point is that the components of Tyson's proposal match a cosmological argument. Craig Lane in his Kalam Cosmological Argument covers the same ground ending with a personal creator just like Tyson. They are essentially identical.

if you disagree fine but each of your objections has been rebutted although you cannot seem to see that and an eminent philosopher and biologist and atheist agree so I am not swayed by your objections. I think it was you who revived this exchange anyway.

[Stranger]

The point is that the components of Tyson's proposal match a cosmological argument. Craig Lane in his Kalam Cosmological Argument covers the same ground ending with a personal creator just like Tyson. They are essentially identical.

Unmitigated drivel.

I think it was you who revived this exchange anyway.

Nope, you did in #308. The idea that I'd bring up this idiocy is even more idiotic than the idea itself.

Your avoidance of my other points, is noted, and confirms my earlier assumption that this is just a distraction tactic anyway.

[Spud]

Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?

What science can do is tell us what didn't happen. The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood. So if the Bible apparently gets that right, maybe it's right about the vine that sprang up overnight (Jonah 4), and hence plants growing on Day 3 of creation week?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood.

How does it do that?

[jeremyp]

What science can do is tell us what didn't happen.

Six day creation and the global flood being amongst those things it tells us didn't happen.

The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood.

No. Precisely the opposite.

So if the Bible apparently gets that right

It doesn't.

maybe it's right about the vine that sprang up overnight (Jonah 4), and hence plants growing on Day 3 of creation week?

It isn't.

[Stranger]

The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood.

No, it would not. Where did you get that utterly absurd idea from?

[Spud]

Six day creation and the global flood being amongst those things it tells us didn't happen.

Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.

How does it do that?

Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.

[Nearly Sane]

Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.
Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.

Idiotic drivel

[Stranger]

Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.

False.

Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.

Scientifically illiterate.

[Outrider]

I am not talking of any misunderstanding of change. I am merely saying that measurement of change is Time. Change exists but Time is just a tool.

Measurement of change is not time, measurement of change is measurement of whatever change you're measuring - what it's changing with respect to, is time.  Time is not a tool, time is part of the fabric of existence that the change is happening in.

O.

[jeremyp]

Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.

I don’t know where you got that idea from. Science does not demonstrate irreducible complexity, quite the opposite, in fact. Even if it did, which it doesn’t, that would not imply six day creation.

Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.

No. Fossils refute the global flood. The Cambrian explosion lasted for 25 million years by the way.

[Walter]

that Cambrian Explosion?

It'll all be over by Christmas 

[Outrider]

Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.

Irreducible complexity, mischaracterised as science by pseudoscientists, fundamentally misunderstands/misrepresents the difference between information and data that is inherent in information theory which is one of the reasons it fails.

Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today?

Possibly, we'll have to wait and see, it's a long process.

The fossils in general speak of a global flood.

The distribution of the fossils in general speaks against a global flood.  The absolute lack of anywhere near enough water speaks against a global flood.  The absolute lack of any consistent reporting of floods from cultures around the world speaks against a global flood.  The geological record speaks against a global flood, and a literal six day creation.  The existence of BUILDINGS that pre-date the calculated 'start of the world' according a literalist six-day young Earth creation doesn't just speak against it, it sings the whole rendition of the retard song accompanied by a balalaika!

The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.

No, the Cambrian explosion is the geologically significant increase in the rate of emergency of variations of life, in some instances where we can't absolutely define ancestry but whom DNA analysis shows are related.

[SteveH]

Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.

An example of irreducible complexity?

[Spud]

An example of irreducible complexity?

Could the honourable gentleman go online and google it? My objective was to highlight Jonah 4, as I did initially, which says that God can make plants grow to maturity overnight. Hence day 3 is possible.

[Roses]

Could the honourable gentleman go online and google it? My objective was to highlight Jonah 4, as I did initially, which says that God can make plants grow to maturity overnight. Hence day 3 is possible.

The Bible says a lot of silly things!

[jeremyp]

Could the honourable gentleman go online and google it? My objective was to highlight Jonah 4, as I did initially, which says that God can make plants grow to maturity overnight. Hence day 3 is possible.

The Bible also says that Jonah, survived being swallowed by a whale. You really should be more sceptical of what it says.

[wigginhall]

An example of irreducible complexity?

It used to be mouse-traps, but countered by Kenneth Miller in his book Only a Theory, see Wiki on irreducible complexity.

[Walter]

An example of irreducible complexity?

spitballs mate, spitballs!

[SteveH]

The Bible says a lot of silly things!

It's not the only one...

[splashscuba]

Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?

Maybe

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BlueHillside on Necessity

Vlad,
 

The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.

Tell us about quantum borrowing.

[Outrider]

Tell us about quantum borrowing.

Do you mean the continuous break-down and recombination of matter and antimatter particles for short durations from the background neutral state of a quantum vacuum, and how it could potentially be part of the explanation of how the universe came to be?

If so, there's some good basic bits and pieces in this article in Science Daily https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm, and wikipedia's take on it seems a reasonable primer too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

O.