New study suggests Big Bang never occurred, Universe existed forever

Researchers have created a new model that applies our latest understanding of quantum mechanics to Einstein’s theory of general relativity and this is what they came up with – it’s truly hard to wrap your mind around that.

Currently accepted theories state that the Universe is around 13.8 billion years old, and before that everything in existence was squished into a tiny point – also known as the singularity – so incredibly compact that it contained everything that eventually became the Universe (actually, this is pretty hard to wrap your mind as well). As the Big Bang took place, the Universe started to expand, and it is expanding faster and faster to this day.

Image via AMNH.

The problem with current theories is that the math breaks down when you start to analyze what happened during or before the Big Bang.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” co-creator of the new model, Ahmed Farag Ali from Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Lisa Zyga from Phys.org.

Working in a team which included Sauya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, he managed to create a new satisfying model in which the Big Bang never occurred, and the Universe simply existed forever.

“In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the Universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the Universe.”

According to this model, the Universe also has no end, which is perhaps even more interesting if you think about it, and that it is filled with a quantum fluid, which might be composed of gravitons – hypothetical particles that have no mass and mediate the force of gravity.

The model shows great promise, but it has to be said – it’s only a mathematical theory at this point. We don’t have the physics to back it up or prove it wrong at the moment, and we likely won’t have it in the near future. Still, it’s remarkable that it solves so many problems at once, and the conclusions are very intriguing.

“It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once,” Das told Zyga.

Read the full study here.

114 thoughts on “New study suggests Big Bang never occurred, Universe existed forever

  1. Filippo Salustri

    This is bullshit. The paper in question doesn’t say what you think it says. All it says is that there are alternatives to the singularity that preceded the big bang.

  2. Andrei Mihai

    Apparently, the first paragraph from another article was imported here – thanks for reporting the technical glitch!

  3. neil2366

    Is it possible thet dynamic substancial space exists like water but with a density of only 3.6 E minus 25 kgs/ cum ? Glad to see Maya(holographic state) in connection with the objective reality idea. Ma means “fluid state” and Ya is “cyclic movement” in Sankrit. Ma is 5 and Ya is 1 and its total is 6 and value is 51. This is how Vedic science created memorable descriptive formulas that had the numerical answer too. As a case to point here . MAYA stands for a hologram. The 6 stands for six sides of a cubic hologram that acts “LIKE” a solid particle. The 51 is the log value of the number of oscillations per cycle. That is 10 ^51 oscillations per cycle and as as in Physics it is a second if the wavelength is a meter as in the electromagnetic state. Now the value of the electromagnatic wave in Sanskrit is given as Gu Na or 3 + 5 = 8 0r 35 total. And the log value of the velocity of light is 8.4721 in Physics JUST AS IN SANSKRIT TOO and if that 8.4721 is raised by Ma Ya as 6 one gets the value of 10^51 WHICH IS THE MASS VALUE OF THE PLANCKS ENERGY CONSTANT h OF value 6.626 x 10 ^ minus 34. Is this a coincidence? Vedic Science had derived this value ages ago from axioms. It meant that quantisation as Vritti or quantum or photon was a part of Vedic science called Sankhya. In it the Physics of the Universe is complete. The Higgs boson has a value of 140 GEV at max compression, the neutrino has a mass value of 9.5 x 10 ^ minus 35 kgs at max compression or space density. Space critical density is 3.6 x 10^ minus 25 kgs/ cu m. . Dr. Bohm, Dr. L. Susskind, Gerard t’Hooft and many others point out recently perhaps the right direction. Is it possib;e that numerical axiom ,self similarity,scale inverience ,& combinatorial mathematics is a integral part of holographic principal in dynamic space where time is approaching zero? Is perpetual rate 296575966 at meter wavelenth arise due to axiomatic reason?

    , Is it possible Maya state of hologram is kept in PERPETUAL HARMONIC OSCILLTION by the PHO state ratio 3.5714 point out in new research at kapillavastu dot com?

  4. Yale

    It’s a matter of logical and scientific intuition hat the universe was always here and will always be, the “when and where” questions are anthropocentric meaningless nonsense; inconsequential, since humans are not even a blip on cosmic scale.

  5. Aram1

    === THERE IS A LAW called the Scientist Law – Every New Theory should be more absurd and stupid than the previous one. Can you imagine, this “scientists” are paid to “Invent” this stupid theories.

  6. Tyrone Brad

    This paper hasn’t even been peer reviewed. Yet you right about it as if it were fact. The Big Bang theory is still the accepted theory to explain the origins of the universe. I also know that articles about different papers/studies can be deceiving. The study doesn’t say that the Big Bang never occurred. It suggest that it wasn’t the origins of the universe, but it doesn’t actually say it never occurred. I understand putting up a headline that would get people reading, but I think the article could least be more factual.

  7. MajorBobbage

    1) It is write, not right.
    2) origin, not origins
    3) You say they are writing about it as fact, yet I see the word “suggest” in the headline.

  8. Akulakhan

    What created God? Did God create Himself? Has He always been? If He’s always been, how is there a beginning of which to speak? If He’s always been, why would He create things in the first place? If God created thing in the first place, isn’t everything predetermined? If everything isn’t predetermined, then God made everything knowingly fallible, and, we have God to blame for creating a reality in which people suffer from atrocities for no reason. If God made things predetermined, then those of us whom commit said atrocities were going to do so inevitably, all being God’s fault.
    Isn’t it a little concerning that you get your information from a less than two thousand year old mythology book?

  9. avlisk

    Tiny minds use god as a means to explain things they don’t understand. Science is so much more rich and wondrous. Anti-science folks don’t understand, and don’t want to understand, the scientific process and how knowledge is gained and refined. (See current Muslim situation in the world, and comments from the christians, as the one we are responding to. A radio guy, called Glen Beck, just this week furthered the ignorance of the scientific method on his show and made himself look foolish when commenting on the Big Bang. My point being, there are mainstream media people who also don’t understand how science works, and this dumbs down the public who don’t think.)

  10. Gary

    They are still peer reviewing both Einstein’ and Newton’s theories on Gravity. nevertheless apples still fall from the trees!

  11. Gary

    So, you’re a Muslim?
    .
    Because that quote comes from one of the Muslim Holy Books.
    .
    I Think Buddha says it happened a different way!

  12. Paul

    Are people this naïve? Buddha is not a god, he was a prince that became a philosopher. And Allah is the Arabic word for God. Much like Dios is the Spanish word for God. Gary, your comment makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

  13. Sonny Fellers

    blame God for creating… how daft must you be. You couldnt be capable of laying blame on God any more than a gnat could predict the weather on Jupiter. Free will is a miraculous part of a determined destiny that allows evil to exist but also makes any love or goodness worth having possible. For no reason my ass. For every reason is more like it.

  14. Gary

    Those people praying to Allah in Arabic are NOT praying to “Jesus Christ” whom both of those religions call a “prince” just as you call Buddha.

  15. CB

    It is impossible for the universe to have always been here. If so, it would be infinitely old, in which case enough time (sequence of events) could never elapse to bring us to the present. It’s mathematically impossible. Wrap your mind around that.

  16. Dexter Nelson

    Nothing created God. He has always existed and always will.

    Psalm 90 “Before the mountains were born or you gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.”

    Hebrews 7:3 “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”

    Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – It would mean that God exists outside of space and time as we understand it.

    And I guess now there is basis to support that argument in science.

  17. Dexter Nelson

    Ah yes, “God of the gaps” – it’s actually a pretty simplistic theory by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

    The problem is that it’s wrong. God isn’t a means to explain things we don’t understand. God is the means to explain everything, whether we understand it or not.

    Tyson understands a lot more about astrophysics than most people, so does that mean that people who don’t understand as much as he does says it’s God?
    And what about Christian scientists that do understand it and still credit God?

    Here’s a reality check.
    A lot of people who fancy themselves as intellectuals often demean people of faith as being less intelligent for believing in God, while holding on to science as the pinnacle of intellect.
    The problem is this – without people of faith, there wouldn’t be any science.

    Did you know that we wouldn’t have the scientific method if it weren’t for people of faith?

    Seriously – do you know that the father of modern scientific methodology was a Muslim scholar? Ibn al-Haytham was the first to place emphasis on experimental data and reproducing results.

    Small minds. Let’s talk critical thinking here.

    It’s not like the best example of scientific inquiry came from a theologian or anything… But wait! It did! Say hello to Grosseteste who was not only a scientist but a Christian theologian.

    His critical thinking ability influenced Roger Bacon and those ideas went from Oxford to the University of Paris.

    According to Hugh Gauch in 2003, Grosseteste’s thinking was spread and adopted by Galileo, William Gilbert, Francis Bacon, William Harvey, Descartes, Robert Hooke, Newton, Leibniz, and the world of the seventeenth century.

    Aristotle, who is the inventor of the scientific method and brought about the shift from platonism to empiricism was the foundation for Judeo-Islamic philosophical and theological thought in metaphysics. It’s called Aristotelianism and it is at the heart of Christian theology.

    I can cite many more examples.

    You see, having faith doesn’t conflict with science. Science was birthed out of a desire to get to know God through His creation. By getting to know his creation, we get to know Him.

    If it weren’t for the critical thinking, empiricism and methodolgy of “religious” people, we wouldn’t have science.

  18. Andrew Saucedo

    Job 36:26 “Behold, God is great, and we do not know Him; Nor can the number of his years be discovered” so there, we will never know because he is too great for us
    He created all things to glorify him, but man sinned because of Satan
    Honestly, I’m not forcing you to convert, all I’m going to say is, read the book of Job, he basically describes God, his glory, and how so much about the earth, way before scientists “discovered” how they work
    For example Job 26:7-8 “He stretches out the North over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds the clouds are not broken under it.”
    Job 26:10- He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,”
    So Job told us about the equator, north and south pole (hangs on nothing”), and clouds
    Also in Job 28:5 “as for the earth, from it comes bread, But underneath it is turned up as by fire;”
    Now he described how magma lies beneath earth, way before scientists”discovered” this
    Also, look at the earth, it is the PERFECT distance from the Sun, any closer or any further and it’s either too hot or too cold to sustain life, ONE DEGREE, just one, off and the earth is unable to support life, just look at the earth, its perfect and that’s all it is
    Also, I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of the scientist who discovered tissue on the fossil of a dinosaur, and got fired, why would he get fired for such a great discovery?
    Because with this, it proved the theory that earth was millions of years old, wrong
    And let’s be honest, a meteor that wiped out the dinosaur species would have taken the earth with it also by knocking it out of orbit, it didn’t just bounce back, and if it did impact the earth, where is the impact located?
    Also in Job 41:1- “Can you draw out the leviathan with a hook, or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?”
    This is God talking to Job about a leviathan, a sea creature dinosaurs, if God were describing this to Job, then Job would indeed have to know what it was, because I doubt they had the technology to dig up fossils, and the first fossil wasn’t discovered until thousands of years later, so therefore, Dinosaurs must have walked among man
    So like I said, I’m not trying to force you to believe, I’m stating this from the bible and from the facts that science “discovered”
    Also, scoona divers discovered Egyptian chariots at the bottom of the red sea, I’m pretty sure horses aren’t stupid to go running into the sea, nor an Egyptian soldier go crash into the red sea for fun, this backs up the story that Moses indeed split the red sea

  19. Josh Zwies

    The Universe was created to be discovered, If you look at the tolerances that the universe is made to, if any of the fine tuning that allows life to exist strays by less than 3% life cannot exist. Too many coincidences have to happen for it to be by chance. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the appearance of design is evidence of a designer.

  20. hu_wen

    Wrong, the Goddess Sophia created the god Yahweh by accident.

    “He [Yahweh] said, with his power, “It is I who am God; there is none apart from me.” When He said this, He sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to heaven; then there was a voice that came forth from heaven, saying, “You are mistaken, Samael” – which is, “god of the blind.”

    His thoughts became blind. And, having expelled his power – that is, the blasphemy he had spoken – he pursued it down to chaos and the abyss, his mother, at the instigation of Pistis Sophia. And she established each of his offspring in conformity with its power – after the pattern of the realms that are above, for by starting from the invisible world the visible world was invented.

    – Hypostasis of the Archons

  21. Dexter Nelson

    Hypostasis of the Archons… Gnostic mythology of the creations of the cosmos and humanity circa 1945 – the silver scrolls (older than the dead sea scrolls) is closing in on 2800 years old (estimated to be written around 600 BC).

    I fear I may be wasting my breath but here is why I say nothing created God.

    The big bang was the theory that replaced the old theory, that the universe was eternal.

    This article is one of the very few who still try to refute it. If you’re truly in it, you can look up Lerner.

    He tried to refute the big bang because the further things get, the dimmer they should be, then we discovered that our star (the sun) is actually pretty small compared to other stars (the largest known would take the earth 1,000+ years going 900+ mph to orbit once.

    There was no way to account for the brightness of a very large star at a great distance, compared to a smaller star that’s much closer.

    Anyway, backing up a bit…

    A lot of people think asking ‘who created God?’ is a very intelligent question. The problem is that it is a relative question that goes on forever.

    Who created God? Who created the thing that created God? Well who created the thing, that created the thing that created God? Well then who created the thing, that created the thing, that created the thing that created God?

    It’s a loop of infinity.

    At some point, there has got to be a beginning – a first domino that starts the chain. So whether God is eternal, or a thousand things in a chain that created God, will be eternal too.

    So the question itself doesn’t get rid of the fact that there is something eternal that created the universe.

    The second thing is that we don’t actually need an explanation of an explanation to know something is.

    For example, if we went to the dark side of the moon and found machines, we’d know that something built it right?

    We don’t need to explain what built it to know that the machine was built.

    Then your question would be, what created the builder that built the machine? and we’re back to an infinite loop.

    We know there was a builder because the machine is there, it was built, which means there was a builder.

    Same way we know there is a God because the universe is here.

    First, the universe is expanding – we can thank Hubble for that discovery. In the 1920’s he discovered that objects in our local cluster (the Milky Way) are moving apart and eventually proved that the universe is expanding.

    In fact we know now that it’s not only expanding but that there is acceleration.

    I can’t share all of my resources but I’ll share a few of them.
    http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html
    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html

    This meant that at some point the universe had a beginning, which also meant that the universe is not eternal.

    We believe that the big bang created the universe, which is space, time, and matter).

    The big bang is proof that there is a creator because all things that have a beginning, has a cause.

    And because the big bang created space, time and matter, the cause has to exist outside of space, time and matter.

    That’s the first case for God – a cause that exists outside of space and time and matter.

    The second case we already discussed – The cause has to be eternal.

    It leaves a question of design.

    Back in the 20’s when Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, something interesting happened.

    Einstein, who had a pantheistic view of God, abandoned his theory of a cosmological constant. Many scientists believed that his constant was zero.

    Then in the 1990’s we discovered that the universe was accelerating. Then we discovered a supernova. Then we discovered dark energy.

    I have a couple books you can look up but the wiki’s do a pretty good explanation and lists some of the sources I read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

    All of those things proved that Einstein was right. Suddenly the cosmological constant wasn’t zero anymore.

    But what did that mean?

    The cosmological constant referred to the value of energy density in the vacuum of space.

    He abandoned his idea of a cosmological constant because the universe was expanding, which meant for him, that it wasn’t constant.

    But it was – we just didn’t have the technology yet.

    With the discovery of supernova for example, we discovered cosmic microwave background and large galaxy redshift surveys. When we discovered dark energy?

    It was a game changer. Theoretical physicists set out to prove that dark energy didn’t exist, because if it did exist it would mean there was a cosmological constant, which meant there was an “outside agent” creating the universe.

    Not only did they discover it, the were able to measure it, and it makes up to 70% of everything in the universe.

    Suddenly a creator wasn’t just a theory anymore. We had scientific proof that the universe was finely tuned.

    For example, the Fibonacci sequence, spirals, and the golden mean can be found in everything in nature from the smallest detectable material to the very shape of galaxies and everything in between.

    https://math.temple.edu/~reich/Fib/fibo.html

    The rate of acceleration of the expanding universe had to be extremely precise from the big bang itself to what we have now.

    If the big bang happened too slowly, everything would collapse in on itself and there wouldn’t be a universe.

    If it happened too rapidly, the universe would fly apart and life wouldn’t exist.

    It was a controlled explosion.

    The validity of a cosmological constant is something that many scientists with an atheistic world view are desperately trying to disprove.

    There’s never been scientific evidence of a creator before and it’s driving them up the wall.

    Just one example?

    Three theoretical physicists, Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind (Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, and the Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge), wrote a study in the Journal of High Energy Physics at IOP Science.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2002/10/011

    Back in 2002, after years of research, building on others’ works of black holes, string theory, etc, they published that article I just linked. “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant.”

    The atheistic world view was no longer valid.

    Antony Flew, one of the most influential philosophers of our modern age, a man who published more than 30 books on atheism changed his world view to deism.

    He said “I go where the evidence leads.”

    Other atheists said he lost his mind as it was such a blow to the atheist movement. All of a sudden Flew went from being one of the men behind the rise of Atheism to being ‘some old man’.

    It was amazing how many turned on him.

    Then Richard Dawkins himself came out and said he can no longer say with certainty that there isn’t a God and that creation is a valid theory.

    In fact he said there are varying degrees of agnosticism.

    One of the reasons for Dawkins’ change of heart was that abiogenesis was refuted and the entire theory of evolution is now being questioned as a whole.

    Anyway, back to my point. The evidence in favor of a cosmological constant and a fine tuned universe swayed many, many minds.

    What made people like Flew turn to deism was that it showed intelligence, and where there is intelligence, there is a mind behind it.

    Suddenly people like Einstein and Aristotle and others who had a pantheistic view of God was validated.

    So what we end up with is this:

    1. A cause that exists outside of space, time and matter.
    2. A cause that is eternal.
    3. A cause that has a mind (intelligence).

    And the fact that we were created, means this:

    4. A cause that has a will.

    That sounds like God to me. If it has a will to create, it means that everything was created for a reason. That means that everything has a purpose.

    The universe isn’t random. It wasn’t by chance.

    The only question people have to answer now is why their god and not others?

    I mean, why the Christian God above all other gods?

    That’s for another time.

  22. Draz J Ekiel

    You made some good points in places stating some facts, but then went on to mention evolution with this sentence: “abiogenesis was
    refuted and the entire theory of evolution is now being questioned as a
    whole.” and it all fell to bits.. They are not the same and not even remotely related, Origin of life is nothing to do with evolution, its totally seperate and evolution has far from fallen to bits. In fact more and more eveidence for evolution has shown up over the past years.

  23. Jeremy

    Time and space is an arbitrary created by man to explain distance, enclosures and much of what we understand. If you realize that time and space are just ideas to explain our surroundings then it becomes much easier to grasp the idea that in the everything that is everything, there is no beginning and no end other than the assumed perceptions as we can observe.

  24. Alex Desilets

    No shit sherlock, of course our math doesn’t work when you plop infinity into it. That doesn’t invalidate infinity, it just means we have to accept that we can never grasp infinity.

  25. Alex Desilets

    Dude, there are over 100 Billion galaxies in the observable universe, the milky way has over 300 billion stars. Modern data from the Kepler space telescope shows that most stars have at least one planet and that earth sized rocky planet in habitable zones are around at least 1/1000 stars. Do the math, that like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 rocky planets earth sized planets in habitable zones. Do you really think life only happened on 1 planet (1/30,000,000,000,000,000,000 of earth sized rocky planets)?

  26. Vernard Mercader

    Wrong. 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. In Einstein’s theory of relativity, E=mc^2 where energy and mass are reciprocal equivalent. In the beginning, Energy (Quantum fibre) has always existed, and energy started to fluctuate and created Matter (mass) and so on, and the Universe was born.

    This is proven, experimented (in NASAs vacuum lab), and observable.

    You think of “God” as a beginning but your only source is a Jewish book of fairy tales from 2,000 years ago.

    I say energy has eternally existed in the universe and this is proven, experimented, and observable, and proven by the first law of thermodynamics.

    (Please bitch, religion isn’t science. Stop trying to explain what you can’t explain properly.)

  27. Vernard Mercader

    Oh great, referencing the Jewish book of fairy tales.

    “Vernard is almighty and powerful and he created everything in the Universe. The proof of this is because it’s Written in the Great Book of Everything About Vernard which was Written by the Great Vernard so it’s proven that the Great Book of Everything About Vernard is absolutely true.”

    Ever heard of Circular Logic?

  28. Vernard Mercader

    The God of the Gaps problem isn’t wrong. You don’t explain what you can’t understand as “God created everything”.

    You have to be a special kind of stupid to do that.

  29. Dexter Nelson

    Sorry, I’m only now seeing your reply. I usually don’t keep up with conversations this old.

    There has actually been a pretty radical shift in the theory of evolution, and pretty much every scientist I know of and have spoken with believes that Darwin was wrong and that his theory is outdated.

    In fact if you look up theory of evolution, they are classified as “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” and “The New Scientific Theory of Evolution” reflecting a new, modern approach proposed by a few who realized that natural selection can’t be true in light of cellular and genetic research that wasn’t available during Darwin’s time.

    Look up James N. Gardner. He wrote a very in depth book, titled The New Scientific Theory of Evolution. Pretty great insight.

    And it actually separates creation from evolution definitely, so when we talk about creation, it’s no longer the realm of evolution.

    Scientifically speaking, a lot of scientists are starting to look into the idea of creation (not God), but the idea that the universe was created.

    I’d highlight that there is a difference between believing the universe was created and being a theist – that’s a very important distinction to make. In other words, believing that we are the product of creation doesn’t mean you believe in God.

    I know it all seems to get mushed together.

    The points I raised do still stand and myself and some very knowledgeable people, (specifically two professors and 3 students) are in the middle of studies dissecting the new information coming out of the scientific community, and have been for the past several weeks.

    So, when we better understand the new stuff and how it applies to the old, I’ll direct them to participate in this conversation.

    Fair enough?

  30. Dexter Nelson

    God of the Gaps isn’t really a problem, more of an explanation. The idea is that God is the explanation for what we don’t understand.

    So, for example, we didn’t understand thunder and lightening so people said “God” or “gods” but now we understand the weather and storms, so God is irrelevant.

    That’s the God of the Gaps, where people fill in what they don’t understand with some form of deity, and when we do understand it, that deity becomes irrelevant.

    Steven Hawking, arguably one of the most brilliant men of our time, said something similar.

    He tried to refute the idea of God, by saying we understand the laws of the universe to a great degree, and because the laws of the universe existed, the universe would have created itself and there’s no need for God or gods to create it.

    The problem with that line of thinking is that it will never make sense when applied to the universe.

    For example, take a jet engine.

    We understand the laws that govern it, (motion, thermodynamics, and so on). But understanding the laws doesn’t mean that the engine created itself.

    If someone said, look at how complex the jet engine is and how it works and how intricate. Someone had to create it. We wouldn’t give it a second thought.

    What Steven Hawking is saying is that since the laws of motion and thermodynamics and force and all the other laws already existed, the engine would have created itself.

    It’s absolute nonsense, because by inference, we know that the materials had to come from somewhere, they had to be formed, there had to be a design to the engine, and more.

    Apply it to anything else if you want.

    How about a sand castle? We wouldn’t walk on the beach one day, see a sandcastle and say ‘after millions and millions of years of erosion, the sand castle is what’s left’.

    Reasoning doesn’t work that way.

    The universe however is an infinitely larger scale so there’s a lot of room for heady conclusions.

    The only difference between the engine or sand castles or anything else is that we know for a fact they were created. There’s a name to the patent for the designer and names to the engineers.

    There’s someone to stand up and say “look at the sand castle I created!”

    But we don’t exactly have that with the universe as a whole.

    But what we do have is the precision and signs of a design, even a footprint as to how the universe works, and from that we can infer a creator, because it is the most consistent explanation we have to explain laws, precision and so on.

    Even a random snowflake pattern can be traced to a design and pattern. We call it the Fibonacci sequence and the golden mean, which is everything from the very shape of galaxies, to the spiral in our DNA.

    Space, time, energy, and matter all came into existence at virtually the same time. That’s science.

    Specifically, what Steven Hawkings said was that they came at the same time, at the beginning there was the singularity, the singularity included matter, energy, space and time at infinite density.

    What we don’t have is a cause, but we do know that every event has a cause.

    Meaning, things don’t just happen randomly. If all of space, time, matter and energy were contained, what caused the singularity to release all of it? The big bang as it were.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, right? But something always causes the first action, and it couldn’t be space, time, matter, or energy… so what’s the cause?

    Here’s why I say there is a creator.

    1. There has to be a first cause – always.

    2. That first cause existed before space, time, matter and energy, as well as operates outside of it.

    We know that’s possible especially because of the research that’s coming out of recent studies into dark matter, (hadron collider, CERN, etc).

    They discovered anti-matter, which exists outside of the physical universe, yet makes up a part of everything in the universe – they can measure it.

    Inevitably, someone is going to look at all that and say “yeah? Well who created God?”

    I use to say nothing created God, and there is a very good chance that I’m right, because if the cause of the universe is outside of space and time and matter and energy, well it’s eternal isn’t it?

    It isn’t bound by time.

    3. The cause of the universe has to be eternal.

    And also following reason, we can infer purpose, which means intelligence and a mind behind it.

    Just like jet engines and sand castles don’t just pop into existence, neither did the universe.

    The fact that there is a cause, combined with evidence of precision, it means that it wasn’t an accident. It didn’t just happen randomly.

    Precision by itself won’t do it, cause by itself won’t do it, but together, they show intent and intelligence.

    Which means that the laws of the universe we are only now beginning to understand is like the plans to build a jet engine.

    Of course, that the universe is bound by laws, means that the laws of the universe are also outside of space and time and matter and energy.

    4. A mind that governs the laws of the universe.

    Look, I hate religion with a passion. I think that it’s a system created to control people, to gain wealth, and to gain power. I don’t care for it. I distinctly draw the line between living a life of faith, and being religious.

    And I’m not saying jump on the Jesus bandwagon and start thumping your bible.

    We each have our own walk of faith and it’s not the same for everyone. I wasn’t raised in a Christian home, yet I found my way to a life of faith regardless.

    That’s my walk and I wouldn’t force that on anyone.

    What I do prize though is the ability to think and rationalize. The Christian view of that is “God gave us a brain for that purpose – to learn, to think, to rationalize” – it’s a shame that most people don’t actually do that.

    They just follow the most influential person they can find and say “this is truth!” and they never pick up a book or dig into it themselves.

    It is a gross, gross negligence of anyone who claims to believe anything at all.

    These are my conclusions, and fortunately, because of my studies and research, I’ve run into others who actually study as much as, if not more than, I do and have come to the same conclusions.

    The universe was created – as to who created it? That’s up to you and others to decide for themselves.

    I will add this.

    Who created God?

    Have we ever needed an explanation for an explanation?

    If we went to the moon and found a machine operating on the dark side, will we need to know who created it, to know that it was created?

    Of course not – that’s because where we see precision and evidence of design we infer intelligence, so we know it was created. We don’t know who created it, or what the purpose it, but we do know there was a purpose (that machine is there for a reason), and it was created for that purpose.

    Who, would be another line of investigation.

    We don’t need an explanation of an explanation to know something is true.

    If in my studies I change my mind, I’ll let you know.

    Cheers mate!

  31. Dexter Nelson

    You need to revisit your science. According to Steven Hawking, Space, Time, Energy and Matter all came into existence at the same time. They were contained in what the science community calls a singularity.

    The cause of the big bang would be eternal and exists outside of space and time and energy and matter – energy isn’t eternal. it didn’t always exist. But that’s just science.

    Hey, what does Steven Hawking know anyway?

  32. Dexter Nelson

    Ironically, when you do the math on probability, it’s actually smaller than a statistical impossibility. You should look up the math on what is considered an impossibility than re-assess.

  33. Yuzuru Otonashi

    I find it funny, I want to ask the same question. What created god?
    If he has always been here then I guess it is fair enough to say the universe has always been here. weather you believe in one or the other it all has the same concept, something being here in the begging to create everything. something had to of create the earth and the planets so I will go with the universe was here always. anyway I find it funny how people use the big bang theory to argue there is a god because the big bang theory was not proven but hey we all believe in something weather it be science, religion or what ever. (I am not looking for a argument just stating my thoughts because I am just a 15 year old kid haha)

  34. Vernard Mercader

    Late response

    // I mean, why the Christian God above all other gods?

    That’s for another time. //

    Spot the bullshit.

    All your vagueness and ambiguity to mask what you’re going to pull next: the “Christian God” crap. (but hey, you actually are just copy and pasting science articles, you don’t understand whatever you said to you, even if Science explains so much things it doesn’t matter—it’s called “Cognitive Dissonance”.)

    // You need to revisit your science. According to Steven Hawking, Space, Time, Energy and Matter all came into existence at the same time. They were contained in what the science community calls a singularity. //

    So? It doesn’t really refute the fact that the universe can exist on it’s own. The Singularity postulate is just one of the many sound and reasonable explanations on how this universe has existed. There’s the “Bounce” theory, there’s the eternal inflation theory, etc.

    You need to study science. (I on the other hand, frequently “revisit” it.

    But guess what Scientific theories on Cosmological origins don’t even mention? God. God is a mythical being, doesn’t belong to Science.

  35. Vernard Mercader

    //

    I will add this.

    Who created God?

    Have we ever needed an explanation for an explanation?

    If we went to the moon and found a machine operating on the dark side, will we need to know who created it, to know that it was created?

    Of course not – that’s because where we see precision and evidence of design we infer intelligence, so we know it was created. We don’t know who created it, or what the purpose it, but we do know there was a purpose (that machine is there for a reason), and it was created for that purpose. //

    Why NOT?

    Sir, the bullshit meter is off the charts with your “conclusions”. We’re detecting heavy levels of Cognitive dissonance.

  36. Vernard Mercader

    Late response:
    // You need to revisit your science. According to Steven Hawking, Space, Time, Energy and Matter all came into existence at the same time. They were contained in what the science community calls a singularity. //

    So? It doesn’t really refute the fact that the universe can exist on it’s own. The Singularity postulate is just one of the many sound and reasonable explanations on how this universe has existed. There’s the “Bounce” theory, there’s the eternal inflation theory, etc.

    You need to study science. (I on the other hand, frequently “revisit” it.

    But guess what Scientific theories on Cosmological origins don’t even mention? God. God is a mythical being, doesn’t belong to Science.

  37. Vernard Mercader

    // 1. A cause that exists outside of space, time and matter.
    2. A cause that is eternal.
    3. A cause that has a mind (intelligence).

    And the fact that we were created, means this:

    4. A cause that has a will. //

    FLAW:
    [3] Is a Non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow 1 & 2. And since 3 is bullshittery, 4 doesn’t follow as well. You’re pulling off bad logic and thinking we’ll let this pass? Come on, man.

    Pulling out the old, defeated Cosmological argument? Read Rebecca Goldstein’s “36 Arguments for the existence of god”.

    // I mean, why the Christian God above all other gods?
    That’s for another time. //

    Spot the bullshit.

    All your vagueness and ambiguity to mask what you’re going to pull next: the “Christian God” crap. (Even if Science explains so much things, it doesn’t matter, just keep the faith—it’s called “Cognitive Dissonance”.)

    But nice try. Lengthy, nice try.

  38. Dexter Nelson

    The bullshitery if you ask me is back commenting so you can completely ignore the rest of the conversation and how it went. There’s a new theory of evolution now, and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been debunked by the science community. Get with the program.

  39. Dexter Nelson

    Who created God? Who created the thing that created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? Who created the thing… you get the idea.

    A. No matter how you slice it, you’ll always have a need for a first cause.
    B. We don’t actually need to know the cause of something to know something is.

    Let’s say we went to the dark side of the moon and found a great big machine. Do we need to know who created it to know that it was a machine?

    We’d know it was designed and that it has a purpose. In fact, we’d probably ask three questions. 1. What is it? 2. Why’s it here? and 3. Who built it?

    From examination and observation, we can answer the first two, and we can use the evidence to assume the third.

    Not knowing who built it doesn’t negate the fact that there’s a big ass machine right in front of your face and that it has a purpose and that it was created.

    So we don’t actually need to know the cause of the machine, or the cause of the cause of the machine to know it is a machine.

    It’s like that with everything else.

  40. Dexter Nelson

    By definition, the Cosmological argument is a case for the existence of a being called God. It doesn’t actually need to come out and mention God. It’s like writing the memoirs of Vernard Mercader and your name isn’t mentioned – doesn’t change the fact it is about you.

  41. Aditya Muttagi

    if god existed always then why can’t it be true for the universe that it had also existed forever?
    if you still agree that god existed forever then provide scientific prove…
    science believes in proof not faith….

  42. Dexter Nelson

    What science has shown is that space and time and energy and matter did have a beginning, which means that it didn’t always exist. That hasn’t changed.

    How it began is where the big question mark is.

    What we are witnessing is the Big Bang theory undergoing a change in definition, much like the theory of evolution did.

    They actually separate it now as “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” and “New Theory of Evolution” as most of science has actually dropped Darwin’s theory as false and they’re developing a new theory.

    The trip up here for a lot of people is reason.

    Science has shown that the universe we know now had a beginning. By reason, anything that has a beginning, has a cause.

    For example, a ball doesn’t just roll on it’s own. The wind blew, it was thrown or kicked, it’s on a slope and gravity…

    There is always an initial cause.

    Beyond that is a debate of terms, among those is God. Of course, science seeks to explain what can be observed by the 5 senses so it is limited in itself.

  43. Dexter Nelson

    And you don’t use proper punctuation. Who are you to question spelling? You see how pointless that is right?

    To answer your question though, I’m not American and I’m used to spelling Stephen (pronounced Stefen in the rest of the world), as Steven (pronounced Steven) as it sounds.

  44. Vernard Mercader

    Ugh, you’re so dense. Stop calling “energy” “God”. Because it doesn’t care about your prayers, it doesn’t care about your sex life, it doesn’t mind if anyone is gay, and shit no, it’s not a Christian one.

    “the Cosmological argument is a case for the existence of a being called God. It doesn’t actually need to come out and mention God.” <== You're telling me basically that you just willfully believe that it is, doesn't matter what facts say.

    Bull- Shit.

  45. Vernard Mercader

    See? You know the problem. The problem of an infinite loop.

    But if your dense brain only paid attention to a very early post I made 2-3 years ago, I already said this:

    “In the 1st law of thermodynamics, ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED AND CANNOT BE DESTROYED there is a good reason to believe that energy, in fact, before all matter, was eternally existent and the Universe with only pure energy has always existed. And because we know that Energy can turn into matter (hence, the Mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2) all matter from the universe came from a spontaneous generation of energy into matter.

    So, there you go, it’s not GOD energy is the first cause of all things.

    God is a character from a book of Jewish myths it’s not a cosmological theory.

    Energy is an eternally existent entity in the universe, why? Because we can observe it: how? The 1st Law of Thermodynamics Not your god.

    Pleaaaaaase, get that through your thick head.

  46. Vernard Mercader

    Huh? That doesn’t even make sense. The topic here is the cosmological argument because the Universe has always existed.

    Even if you are to dance around the topic of Evolution (I bet you are one of those people who do not understand the difference between a layman’s term of “theory”, a Scientific Theory, and a Scientific Law).

    And please,
    // There’s a new theory of evolution now, and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been debunked //

    If you’re talking about a religious one, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidences. Like say, a citation or a source?

    Otherwise, let me tell you this, there are no “debunking” happening against Darwin’s Theory, there are improvements to the theory, which just strongly supported Darwin’s original theory.

    CITATION:
    National academy of Sciences, http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

  47. Dexter Nelson

    I’m not so sure what’s hard to understand. You say the Cosmological argument doesn’t mention God, and I’m saying it’s all about God.

    That’s not me saying that. That is what it is.

    “In natural theology, a cosmological argument is an argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God, is deduced or inferred as highly probable from facts or alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it. It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, or the causal argument.”

    As defined by The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Bruce Reichenbach, and The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion by Paul Copan.

    It doesn’t need to spell out God in every sentence – it’s all about God, period.

    If it doesn’t make sense to you, that’s your problem, not mine.

  48. Dexter Nelson

    You do realize everyone can see when you posted right? 12 days ago, not 2-3 years. Hell, this article was posted 10 months ago. You’re such a hateful liar.

    The law of thermodynamics applies to energy that’s ALREADY HERE, but doesn’t explain WHERE IT CAME FROM.

    That’s the difference – origin and state.

    The state says it can’t be created or destroyed (in a closed system), but origin is just that – how it came to be.

  49. Vernard Mercader

    You’re not getting this.

    Let’s make this simple.

    Energy is eternally existent.

    Why? 1st Law of Thermodynamics. That’s scientific Law.

    Where did everything come from? Energy is interchangeable to Mass/Matter. That’s from the Mass-Energy equivalence coined by Albert Einstein, E=mc^2 (or rather, E^2 = m^2 + C^2).

    That’s also Science.

    Who Created God? Man created god. Where is the origin of god? From thought, and man wrote the bible as man invented religion.

    There is this small bubble of belief, your bubble, and in your thinking, the god (who was invented for you by 4,000 – 5,000 Jewish herders) of the bible, created the world…

    Then there is reality, which is observed and explained through the use of the Scientific method.

    Do you understand the words you are reading right now?

  50. Vernard Mercader

    Sorry, I’m talking about another article when I mentioned 2-3 years. Christians are these dense that’s why I’ve been repeating Scientific Theories and Scientific laws to you.

    What I meant was 4 Months ago (Quoted Below). I’m not lying. I just forgot.

    At least I’m not pretending to know Science like you do.

    4 Months ago:

    Wrong. 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. In Einstein’s theory of relativity, E=mc^2 where energy and mass are reciprocal equivalent. In the beginning, Energy (Quantum fibre) has always existed, and energy started to fluctuate and created Matter (mass) and so on, and the Universe was born.

    This is proven, experimented (in NASAs vacuum lab), and observable.

    You think of “God” as a beginning but your only source is a Jewish book of fairy tales from 2,000 years ago.

    I say energy has eternally existed in the universe and this is proven, experimented, and observable, and proven by the first law of thermodynamics.

    (Please bitch, religion isn’t science. Stop trying to explain what you can’t explain properly.)

  51. Vernard Mercader

    There is no creation, only a spontaneous generation of matter, when matter dissipates it returns into energy and energy will again become matter, it’s a circle.

    Unless you understand that the Bible is man-made, you won’t understand that the ‘god’ you wrongly attribute for the beginning of the universe is also man-made.

    How did you know about God? Who gave you the thought of it?
    a.) Parents
    b.) Preachers

    Depending on your answer above, A or B also got it from another preacher, and that preacher got it from another, and another, until we come to the original nomadic middle-eastern desert chieftain who told stories about this very powerful being because he doesn’t know how the universe was created.

  52. Dexter Nelson

    All of society is man-made, including the science books we all read. Those laws of science? Man-made observations. Every word out of your mouth is man-made. Saying the bible is man-made is the biggest duh that applies to everything else in society, including society itself.

    And while I get that most people in this country learned about God from parents or preachers, I grew up in a different country.

    Unfortunately for you, the idea of God has no beginning or end. As long as there have been humans, there has been deity. There’s no way to pin point at which point in time humans came up with deity. We just know that the oldest archaeological evidence we have shows that deity was always part of our existence.

    And not only that, since science only strives to explain what can be perceived by the 5 senses, it’s inadequate to explain God, and this is coming from someone who knows that the scientific method was given to us by religion to start with.

    You’d have to prove there is no God scientifically by testing it now wouldn’t you?

  53. Vernard Mercader

    // We just know that the oldest archaeological evidence we have shows that deity was always part of our existence. //

    What Archaeological evidence? Citations, again, please.

    Archaeological evidence actually insists that all holy books were written by humans at some point. So what are you talking about?

    // And not only that, since science only strives to explain what can be perceived by the 5 se… //
    Well duh? Science doesn’t deal with anything that doesn’t exist! Science can’t measure anything that imaginary, you just imagine it, you just believe it and then you can create your own little bubble of belief!

    Dexter,

    If everyone’s memory in this planet will be wiped out and all of us lost the thought of Religion and Science, people will will eventually create religion, but it’s not going to be the same shit like Christianity, Islam or Judaism. Maybe “Samsangulu” or “Tangala” or whatever new word I can make up, and an ‘almighty’ creator will not be called ‘GOD’ but probably ‘TLU’.

    But people will observe and experiment the same way. People will eventually discover that the earth revolves around the sun, the sun consists of mostly Hydrogen, and eggs explode when you put it in a microwave

    because
    Science
    deals
    with
    Reality

    // You’d have to prove there is no God scientifically by testing it now wouldn’t you? //

    —That shit above, really? What do you take me for? An atheist for like a few weeks?

    Prove to me that a pink dragon with purple stripes carrying a 2,000lbs unicorn behind me does not exist and I will use the same method for proving that your God does not exist. (This logical fallacy is called shifting the burden of proof [ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof ]).

  54. Dexter Nelson

    There isn’t a thread long enough for me to cite sources. I’d have to write a whole book. Fortunately I don’t have to. There are dozens of them from ancient Canaanite writing on the inside of Egyptian pyramids, to scrolls and tablets several thousand years old, to language itself.

    For example, the word boat in Chinese are 3 symbols (vessel, the number 8, and mouths or people) .Sound familiar?

    And the Chinese language developed independently of other languages and influence.

    Here’s a bit of reality for you – human nature. Everybody, when faced with crisis they can’t control or see a way out of will react the same way, on hope.

    When the shit hits the fans and people are faced with circumstance out of their control, especially in the face of death, human beings will pray or look for higher meaning beyond themselves.

    Many of them end up praying to a God they don’t believe in to start with.

    Science deals with the senses, and nothing else.

    Burden of proof falls to anyone with a claim to make. Which means that I have to show that there is evidence for God, and you have to show that there isn’t.

    It just so happens that I’m doing it with reason.

  55. Vernard Mercader

    *facepalm*

    The first 398 characters of your response (about archaeology) doesn’t provide anything of sorts to prove god’s existence. You’re just making a poor use of context to make it look like it, but what it just really shows that humans have been creating gods and it’s on a scale of variety.

    For example, the word boat in Chinese are 3 symbols (vessel, the number 8, and mouths or people) .Sound familiar?

    talking to myself: What the hell does that even have to do with proving god’s existence. Is this guy trying to spin things?

    Here’s a bit of reality fo…

    The rest of that shit… it’s called the fallacy of appeal to emotion.
    The flaw to that “when you’re down you need god to comfort you” has also been coined by Rebecca Goldstein in her “36 Arguments for the existence of God

    “FLAW: This argument is a sorrowful one, since it highlights the most intolerable feature of our world, the excess of suffering. The suffering in this world is excessive in both its intensity and its prevalence, often undergone by those who can never gain anything from it. This is a powerful argument against the existence of a compassionate and powerful deity. It is only the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking, embodied in Premise 2, that could make us presume that what is psychologically intolerable cannot be the case.

    Science deals with the senses, and nothing else.

    Really? Your understanding of Science is so poor, you probably don’t know how the computer your typing on was made… How this world runs efficiently compare to 300, 500, 1000 years ago because of all the scientific endeavors. You probably also do not understand that mental therapy and psychological counseling are also science-based (and prominently much more helpful than the false pretense of “prayers”).

    It just so happens that I’m doing it with reason.

    With reason? Yes, and I’m the king of England. So by all means, you prove to me that the Pink dragon doesn’t exist. After all, you did say “it is reasonable” to ask for proof of what doesn’t exist. I’d be ecstatic if someone can prove that pink dragon behind me doesn’t exist.

  56. Dexter Nelson

    Actually I’m quite neutral emotion-wise on this subject. Personally I couldn’t care less. Truth is you’re just helping me pass the time until my raid team comes online and then I’m gone. You’re the one that actually seems all upset and twisted.

    You’re so determined to insult and demean and call names at anyone who disagrees with you, it’s probably pissing you off that all your huffing and puffing doesn’t even blip on my emotional radar.

    I’ve already figured you out and you’re no different than any other hot head who hates religion and find it personally offensive that anyone believes in God.

    Fact is, no matter what I say, your reaction will always be the same. Insults, name calling, trying to discredit me.

    Nothing you’ve said refutes anything I’ve said. Human nature is still human nature and people still do exactly what I said they do. Whether you think it’s bullshit or not doesn’t change anything. People still do it.

    For example, it’s a fact that the Chinese language originated independently of influence of other Mediterranean languages. So Sumer is out, Babylon is out, Africa is out, Turkey is out, and every other country is out. Chinese language had nothing to with them or vice versa.

    Yet, they have a word that refers to Noah and the ark. A vessel of 8 mouths (Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives).

    Your position was that if all knowledge was wiped out, religion wouldn’t exist. So I put forward a case of a culture that had no influence from Christianity, and in fact went with another religion altogether, yet corroborates biblical accounts… what conclusion does that leave?

    And I’m just using the word boat. There are others.

    The word “devil” in Chinese are the symbols, secret, man/son, and garden.

    The word “tempter” incorporates the word devil (secret, man, garden) then adds the symbols alive, trees, cover.

    They point right back to the biblical account in Genesis.

    The word covet is trees + woman.

    The word forbidden literally means “God commands about two trees” – as in the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge and good and evil.

    So you have an entire culture and language apart that developed away from influence, pointing right back to the biblical accounts of Genesis.

    Of course to you that’s probably just bullshit.. but then again, what you think is actually irrelevant since it doesn’t change what is.

  57. Vernard Mercader

    No dodgy, dodgy Dexter. I’m waiting for your “proof”.

    Me: Prove to me that a pink dragon with purple stripes carrying a 2,000lbs unicorn behind me does not exist

    I can help you claim a seat in the annals of history and become the first man to “prove something doesn’t exist”. I will then, appropriately, apply your methods for proving your God, doesn’t exist.

  58. Vernard Mercader

    I’m going to let you read something. Some dude posted this and it’s called off-topic:

    Human nature is still human nature and people still do exactly what I said they do. Whether you think it’s bullshit or not doesn’t change anything. People still do it.

    For example, it’s a fact that the Chinese language originated independently of influence of other Mediterranean languages. So Sumer is out, Babylon is out, Africa is out, Turkey is out, and every other country is out. Chinese language had nothing to with them or vice versa.

    Yet, they have a word that refers to Noah and the ark. A vessel of 8 mouths (Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives).

    Your position was that if all knowledge was wiped out, religion wouldn’t exist. So I put forward a case of a culture that had no influence from Christianity, and in fact went with another religion altogether, yet corroborates biblical accounts… what conclusion does that leave?

    And I’m just using the word boat. There are others.

    The word “devil” in Chinese are the symbols, secret, man/son, and garden.

    The word “tempter” incorporates the word devil (secret, man, garden) then adds the symbols alive, trees, cover.

    They point right back to the biblical account in Genesis.

    The word covet is trees + woman.

    The word forbidden literally means “God commands about two trees” – as in the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge and good and evil.

    So you have an entire culture and language apart that developed away from influence, pointing right back to the biblical accounts of Genesis.

  59. Vernard Mercader

    I cannot prove my dragon exists because it’s not there, it’s just imaginary. I could pretend the scarf behind me is the dragon because it seems like a dragon, but false attributing a scarf and calling it a dragon doesn’t make it a dragon.

    Congratulations, I have now respect for you for putting the Burden of Proof in me because *I claimed* that a dragon exists, and me, asking you to prove that it doesn’t exist, is stupid.

    Thank you for learning, Dexter.

    Much respect.

  60. Dexter Nelson

    You’re failing to understand something very simple. I don’t have to prove God directly. We can infer God from the things we do know and have discovered.
    It’s not something that’s limited to religion.
    How did we discover some planets and exoplanets? We inferred that a planet was there from observing something else. For example, Pluto wasn’t discovered by direct observation. Clyde Tombaugh (astronomer in 1930), detected strange fluctuations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune and inferred that there must be something interfering with the orbit, and later, he discovered Pluto.
    Any predictive model from traffic patterns to storms is done by observing something else.
    So if you have corroborating accounts of the bible from multiple sources, whether it’s the Code of Hammurabi, Nuzi tables, the existence of Hittites, The Merneptah Stele (a tablet of Egyptian war records recording a people called Israel being defeated), or Proto-Canaanite writing inside Egyptian pyramids, or any number of other things that independently verify the bible’s account, one can reasonably infer that the Christian God is real.
    This is very basic logic man.
    The question becomes, is there enough evidence to infer there is a God?
    The answer is a resounding yes.

  61. Vernard Mercader

    The bible is an ancient scripture: True

    or any number of other things that independently verify the bible’s account, one can reasonably infer that the Christian God is real.

    False.

    That’s not logic. It’s a logical fallacy called a non-sequitur. You have to stop that.

    before “…Christian God is real” everything you said may hold a fact to it, I respect that. But that doesn’t prove that the Christian god is real, let alone prove that a God is real, because, again,
    It’s
    a
    non-sequitur.

    Historical races, historical records, ancient scriptures prove that we humans like to create Religion. It’s not a proof for God’s existence.

    Don’t you get this basic logic?

    The question becomes, is there enough evidence to infer there is a God?

    The answer is a resounding yes.

    ^ More things that don’t follow anything that you say.

  62. Vernard Mercader

    Addendum:
    If at all, The code of Hammurabi, the epic of Gilgamesh, Nuzi tables, etc. etc. they are actually cultural references that pre-dates Judaism let alone Christianity. There is also a very obvious ‘cultural’ copying going on and most of the things you find in Judaism are often copied from earlier writings of other civilisation, proving that the Judeo-Christian tenets are just but copycats of the older religions.

    ^ Still not a proof of God. It’s a proof that Humans have been inventing religions MUCH earlier before Christianity was invented.

    You can’t fool me with this …and… what the hell? Does this still relate to Cosmological theories? At least maybe veering off topic is a sign of giving up on trying to prove that (good choice).

  63. Vernard Mercader

    You’re failing to understand something very simple. I don’t have to prove God directly. We can infer God from the things we do know and have discovered.

    It’s very disappointing you actually did not learn anything about the “Burden of Proof” or let alone what qualifies as “proof”. Good thing you’re a musician, not a Philosophy student. You’ll fail that subject.

  64. Dexter Nelson

    There’s actually quite a bit of history there that you’re ignoring but that’s beside the point. You are missing a very important part to reason and this is why you can’t follow the logic. You’re simply incapable of thinking on that level.

    If I said there’s archaeological evidence that supports the bible, you’d attack the archaeological evidence.

    If I said there’s historical evidence, like historians who wrote about Christ, you’d attack the historians.

    If I said there is scientific evidence for intelligent design, like quantum physics (which did by the way make an excellent case for not just God but an afterlife), you’d attack the science.

    If I said there were philosophical reasoning to believe that there is a God you’d attack the philosophical reasoning.

    If I said there were experiential accounts of billions of people who affirm they’ve experienced God, you’d attack those billions of people.

    And so it goes, on and on and on, BUT…

    That’s just a linear argument.

    The bigger picture that you’re not seeing is that while you’re attacking each individual thing, the sum is greater than the parts.

    If I shared with you all the above, all at once, historical evidence, archaeological finds, publications and findings from scientists who believe in God, thousands of testimonies from thousands of people who experienced it themselves, even accounts of former atheists who now believe in God…

    If I put all of that in front of you, it would be impossible to say that God doesn’t exist and be 100% certain about it, because all of that combined would give anyone pause for thought, because with all of that, anyone can infer that there is a God.

    You can break it down any which way you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that those things exist. The only thing you can say is that you don’t want to believe there is a God, and you can it’s made up and all of that, but it’s just your opinion and nothing more.

  65. Dexter Nelson

    Proof by definition is evidence or argument. What’s sad is that you have a narrow view of what proof should be. And I am a philosophy student, well on my way toward a degree and becoming a historian.

    And you just proved everything that I’ve said about you. End it with an insult and an attack against me. When a man can’t stand on his intelligence, he stands on making the other man small to raise himself up.

  66. Vernard Mercader

    ^ The Logical fallacy of special pleading.

    If I said there’s archaeological evidence that supports the bible, you’d attack the archaeological evidence.

    If I said there’s historical evidence, like historians who wrote about Christ, you’d attack the historians.

    If I said there is scientific evidence for intelligent design, like quantum physics (which did by the way make an excellent case for not just God but an afterlife), you’d attack the science.

    If I said there were philosophical reasoning to believe that there is a God you’d attack the philosophical reasoning.

    If I said there were experiential accounts of billions of people who affirm they’ve experienced God, you’d attack those billions of people.

    Because
    They
    are
    *hold your breath for this one*
    NONSENSE

    Why shouldn’t I attack it? Are you expecting me to just say “yes” and not disseminate the information (a.k.a. Bullshit) that you’re telling me? I read EVERYTHING that you say, I run them on logical processing, and if they run into a logical fallacy THEY ARE NONSENSE. And I even provide reasons why I do not agree with you, you should be thankful I do that, instead of just blurting out “Nah you’re wrong! You suck!” *period*

    Since the beginning of this article and comments four months ago, I’ve read nothing but these:

    – Logical fallacy of Ambiguity
    – Logical fallacy of Non-sequitur (it does not follow)
    – Appeal to Holy Books
    – Logical fallacy of personal incredulity
    – Logical fallacy of appeal to emotion (your next comment)
    – Logical fallacy of special pleading (this comment)
    – Appeal to [authority, i.e. archaeology, History] in wrong context (using non-sequitur)

    Why are you so dense, thinking I’m “trying to bring people down” when you fail to look at yourself, thinking that you are a great Philosophical master (twister) and you know all these when in fact—I’m not shitting you—you do not?

  67. Vernard Mercader

    You’re a Philosophy student and yet you don’t know how a “proof” actually works?
    Maybe you are, but now I think you need to be a Scientist, too—so just you know how proof works.

    People have a lot of “evidence”. People say they have evidence that magic is real because a statue of the Virgin Mary is crying blood, BUT evidence will be subjected to test and reasoning and must be ran into a logical process and rationalising before that evidence can be counted as valid.

    And you just proved everything that I’ve said about you. End it with an insult and an attack against me. When a man can’t stand on his intelligence, he stands on making the other man small to raise himself up.

    Dexter, appeal to emotions fallacy.
    I’m calling you out on bullshit. If you stop the bullshit, there’s no need for me to call out on anything. Just because I don’t agree with you means I’m insulting you? I thought you’re a Philo student.

  68. Dexter Nelson

    Dude, stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
    A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
    What you’re ascribing as fallacies are imposed personal characteristics.
    Fallacies can be either formal or informal.
    Formal fallacies are called deductive fallacies, for example, 1. All men are mortal, 2. I am a man, 3. I am mortal.
    It’s impossible that 1 and 2 can be true and the third false, so it is a deductively valid argument.
    Informal fallacies are somewhat less strict as formal ones.
    For example, 1. every day to date the law of gravity has held, therefore 2. the law of gravity will hold tomorrow.
    This is what we call inductive reasoning.
    Then there are Logical and Factual errors, where either the data is wrong, or there isn’t enough evidence to support a drawn conclusion.
    I can go down each item you listed and cut it apart on the basis of your own fallacy of presumption.
    Your whole argument is based on your imposed characteristics on how you think I view myself, when all evidence (including my own statements) is to the contrary.
    That would make your argument invalid because of factual errors.
    All the insults were from you to me.
    And what you call a logical fallacy isn’t because everything I have said, you attacked, consistently. There’s more than adequate proof to assert that you would attack any statement I make.
    You also took my argument out of context and ignored the conclusion – that the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts.
    That’s Aristotle who postulated that by the way, so you know.
    All you’re doing is taking bits and pieces of what I said to construct rebuttal, devoid of proper context.
    … and to hurl in a few insults while you’re at it.
    All I said was that I was a philosophy student on my way to a degree. That whole philosophical master thing you did? That’s all you hos.
    Quit while you’re ahead, because trust me, if I actually cared, I’d make you look like an ass
    You can take your Ad Hominem elsewhere. That by the way is a personal attack, or a fallacy of relevance.
    Get to steppin’ young buck before you get schooled. See? Ad Hominem =P

    … yeah. I can do it too.

  69. Vernard Mercader

    *shakes my head* and why don’t you apply what you know to your arguments?

    Or are you intentionally bombarding your reasonings with fallacious statements just in case an idiot will just take your word for it?

    And again, you made a full length lecture on logical fallacies, and veered off topic once again as you never provide any proof of god’s existence. (Which by the way, didn’t you notice that all proofs of existence are fallacies? Fancy that).

  70. Dexter Nelson

    You are wrong. The only proofs that can be fallacious are mathematical ones.

    Proof (being evidence or argument) cannot fallacies in themselves, or any evidence presented in a courtroom would be invalid.

    If all proofs of existence were fallacies, then asking for proof of existence deems the question itself fallacious because it can only be answered with a fallacy, making every possible answer invalid, therefore the question can never be satisfied.

    That makes your question a logical fallacy, what we call a loaded question. At best it’s rhetorical, meaning that the only answers you’ll accept are ones which you think are the only correct answers, in which case it too is a fallacy of false dilemma.

    Care to try again?

  71. Dexter Nelson

    Being serious for a moment here. Remember I mentioned witness accounts as experiential evidence for God? You thought I was making some appeal, when in fact I was talking about substance. I wanted you to take a look at this.

    The premise is that if God is real and performing miracles, then there should be evidence to support it. They are calling it the miracle evidence documentary. You should take a look.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/simplykingdom/miracle-evidence-documentary

  72. Vernard Mercader

    You are wrong. The only proofs that can be fallacious are mathematical ones.

    “I have a proof a horse with at least 12-16 inch conical horn, called a “Unicorn” exists. Here is my “proof” (I show you a skull of a Narwhal, out of personal incredulity).

    Was that a mathematical proof?

    I’m beginning to think you’re only pretending to know what you’re talking about.

  73. Vernard Mercader

    You are wrong. The only proofs that can be fallacious are mathematical ones.

    “I have a proof a horse with at least 12-16 inch conical horn, called a “Unicorn” exists. Here is my “proof” (I show you a skull of a Narwhal, out of personal incredulity).

    Was that a mathematical proof?

    I’m beginning to think you’re only pretending to know what you’re talking about.

    Listen Dexter, it’s okay to be wrong.

    When you said this? “Quit while you’re ahead“—that implies that you are already giving up and tired.

    but instead of silently bowing out like a real man, you’re going to taunt me like an infantile moron with this: “because trust me, if I actually cared, I’d make you look like an ass“—shows that incredibly HUGE ego you have, probably double the size of that afro in the picture you got… and an infinitesimal arrogance only seen in Zealot Christian believers.

    While I do use fallacies, that doesn’t make my points on calling out your fallacies invalid. You’re doing another fallacy, called the “Fallacy fallacy“.

    Seeing that this no longer will stay on topic as you have thoroughly repeated, I’m ending this for your sake. No, I’m not asking you to stop, trust me, with that HUGE ego you have, you will still respond to this. I’m betting $500.00 you will respond to this. I’m ending this not because I can (if not already) hand your ass to you—I don’t care about that childish shit—not just because your pseudo-philosophical nonsense is just a pure waste of intellect—it’s because, unlike you, I can bow out like a real man, and I acknowledge that there will be no gaining on trying to listen to someone who cannot stay on topic.

  74. Vernard Mercader

    Why are you talking to yourself?

    And… wow, that’s a bad argument:

    The Argument from Miracles

    1. Miracles are events that violate the laws of nature.

    2. Miracles can be explained only by a force that has the power of suspending the laws of nature for the purpose of making its presence known or changing the course of human history (from 1).

    3. Only God has the power and the purpose to carry out miracles (from 2).

    4. We have a multitude of written and oral reports of miracles. (Indeed, every major religion is founded on a list of miracles.)

    5. Human testimony would be useless if it were not, in the majority of cases, veridical.

    6. The best explanation for why there are so many reports testifying to the same thing is that the reports are true (from 5).

    7. The best explanation for the multitudinous reports of miracles is that miracles have indeed occurred (from 6).

    8. God exists (from 3 & 7).

    FLAW 1: It is certainly true, as Premise 4 asserts, that we have a multitude of reports of miracles, with each religion insisting on those that establish it alone as the true religion. But the reports are not testifying to the same events; each miracle list justifies one religion at the expense of the others. See FLAW 2 in the Argument from Holy Books, #23 below.

    FLAW 2: The fatal flaw in The Argument from Miracles was masterfully exposed by David Hume in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Chapter 10, “On Miracles.” Human testimony may often be accurate, but it is very far from infallible. People are sometimes mistaken; people are sometimes dishonest; people are sometimes gullible — indeed, more than sometimes. Since in order to believe that a miracle has occurred we must believe a law of nature has been violated (something for which we otherwise have the maximum of empirical evidence), and we can only believe it on the basis of the truthfulness of human testimony (which we already know is often inaccurate), then even if we knew nothing else about the event, and had no particular reason to distrust the reports of witness, we would have to conclude that it is more likely that the miracle has not occurred, and that there is an error in the testimony, than that the miracle has occurred. (Hume strengthens his argument, already strong, by observing that religion creates situations in which there are particular reasons to distrust the reports of witnesses. “But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense.”)

    COMMENT: The Argument from Miracles covers more specific arguments, such as The Argument from Prophets, The Arguments from Messiahs, and the Argument from Individuals with Miraculous Powers.

    – excerpt, Argument #11, 36 arguments for the existence of god, Rebecca Goldstein

  75. Vernard Mercader

    You are wrong. The only proofs that can be fallacious are mathematical ones.

    “I have a proof a horse with at least 12-16 inch conical horn, called a “Unicorn” exists. Here is my “proof” (I show you a skull of a Narwhal, out of personal incredulity).

    Was that a mathematical proof?

    I’m beginning to think you’re only pretending to know what you’re talking about.

    Listen Dexter, it’s okay to be wrong.

    When you said this? “Quit while you’re ahead“—that implies that you are already giving up and tired.

    but instead of silently bowing out like a real man, you’re going to taunt me like an infantile moron with this: “because trust me, if I actually cared, I’d make you look like an ass“—shows that incredibly HUGE ego you have, probably double the size of that afro in the picture you got… and an infinitesimal arrogance only seen in Zealot Christian believers.

    While I do use fallacies, that doesn’t make my points on calling out your fallacies invalid. You’re doing another fallacy, called the “Fallacy fallacy“.

    Seeing that this no longer will stay on topic as you have thoroughly repeated, I’m ending this for your sake. No, I’m not asking you to stop, trust me, with that HUGE ego you have, you will still respond to this. I’m betting $500.00 you will respond to this. I’m ending this not because I can (if not already) hand your ass to you—I don’t care about that childish shit—not just because your pseudo-philosophical nonsense is just a pure waste of intellect—it’s because, unlike you, I can bow out like a real man, and I acknowledge that there will be no gaining on trying to listen to someone who cannot stay on topic.

  76. Dexter Nelson

    You lack a basic grasp of the English language. You can’t have “a proof a horse…”, you can have “proof OF a horse” – you’re mixing up the subject. “A proof” as in “a mathematical proof” is the subject. In your sentence, you’re talking about a horse – proof of, and a proof. Two completely different things.

    Your statement that all “proofs” signifies something OTHER than proof of something.

    A proof is a verb reference, proof in the sense of proof of something, is a noun.

    My statement stands. it’s basic English here man

  77. Vernard Mercader

    Ambiguity Fallacy, derp.

    Fix your English man, the verb is “prove”, a “proof” is a noun.

    So, correcting my english proves the existence of god? Didn’t I tell you to stay on topic? Or do you want me to say that in English?

    In case you missed:

    Listen Dexter, it’s okay to be wrong.

    When you said this? “Quit while you’re ahead”—that implies that you are already giving up and tired.

    but instead of silently bowing out like a real man, you’re going to taunt me like an infantile moron with this: “because trust me, if I actually cared, I’d make you look like an ass”—shows that incredibly HUGE ego you have, probably double the size of that afro in the picture you got… and an infinitesimal arrogance only seen in Zealot Christian believers.

    While I do use fallacies, that doesn’t make my points on calling out your fallacies invalid. You’re doing another fallacy, called the “Fallacy fallacy”.

    Seeing that this no longer will stay on topic as you have thoroughly repeated, I’m ending this for your sake. No, I’m not asking you to stop, trust me, with that HUGE ego you have, you will still respond to this. I’m betting $500.00 you will respond to this. I’m ending this not because I can (if not already) hand your ass to you—I don’t care about that childish shit—not just because your pseudo-philosophical nonsense is just a pure waste of intellect—it’s because, unlike you, I can bow out like a real man, and I acknowledge that there will be no gaining on trying to listen to someone who cannot stay on topic.

  78. Dexter Nelson

    Courtesy of Oxford.

    Proof:

    Verb:

    1. make (fabric) waterproof:
    “the tent is made from proofed nylon”

    2. make a proof of (a printed work, engraving, etc.):
    “proofing could be done on a low-cost printer”

    3. proofread (a text):
    “a book about dinosaurs was being proofed by the publisher”

    NORTH AMERICAN

    1. activate (yeast) by the addition of liquid.
    knead (dough) until light and smooth.

    (of dough) prove:
    “shape into a baguette and let proof for a few minutes”

    When it comes to the verb form of proof, “prove” is dough. We aren’t talking about dough.

    PROOF, in the noun context is, “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”

    So when you said all proofs are fallacies, you invalidated your own question “show me proof of…” because all evidence and arguments would be invalid by your own logic.

    In other words, you ask a question in which, by your own reason, the only possible answer is a fallacy, then turn around and dismiss the answer given for being fallacious.

    That makes your question itself fallacious.

    So either there has to be a non-fallacious answer that you have to accept as possible, or you have committed a fallacy of your own.

  79. Vernard Mercader

    Eeey! At least you updated, from 3 to 5:

    You’ve only given me:

    1.) God of the gaps/cosmological argument (personal incredulity)
    2.) Appeal to Authority (using “Archaeology” and history out of context).
    3.) Miracles (LOL, you noob)
    4.) Burden of Proof (You tried, but gave in and asked me if the dragon exists,)
    5.) Ambiguity (meaning of “Proof”)

    You have 695 disproved arguments left!

  80. Dexter Nelson

    Back to insults is it?

    1. The God of the Gaps is not the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument generally deals with what is observable, such as causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it – In other words, based on what we do know, one can infer a God.

    The God of the Gaps focuses on the “gaps” on science where things either aren’t known, or can’t be explained.

    2. Appeal to authority – everything is an appeal to authority can’t be used to dismiss or disregard the claims of experts who have demonstrated in depth knowledge.

    In other words, you can claim that my argument is invalid, but unless you have the same or higher level of expertise and in depth knowledge, you can’t dismiss the information of those experts.

    ALSO, you fail to understand appeal to authority. An appeal to authority means “because an expert believes it, I believe it to”.

    I’ve made no such case. When you asked for proof of my claim, I used EXAMPLES to support MY ideas. At no time did I claim, because an archaeologist says they believe in God, I do too.

    My argument has always been the same – that there is enough evidence (historically, archaeologically, philosophically, experientially, and so on) that when viewed ALL TOGETHER, one can infer a God.

    An appeal to authority would be what you first assumed; my teacher believes in God so I believe in God, or some preacher I look up to believes in God so I do too – and as you know now, I didn’t grow up in a religious home and CHOSE to believe in God for other reasons.

    3. At no point did I use miracles as an argument – I showed you something you thought you might find interesting – a documentary where doctors, scientists, physicians, etc. are trying to prove that miracles happen based on medical evidence.

    It was just something I found interesting and wanted to share, not something used as a case for God.

    4. Burden of proof is simply an obligation to prove one’s assertion, and it falls on anyone who’s making an assertion. So when you made an assertion I said prove it, just as when I made my assertion you said prove it.

    The difference between you and I, is that I don’t assume all proof is fallacious. In your mind, there can never be or ever will be any kind of proof that isn’t fallacious so no one can ever prove anything.

    By the way, when you see the word “prove” here, it’s association is action (to prove), making it the proper use of a verb, the result being the noun proof.

    5. Ambiguity (meaning of proof) – Not sure what you’re talking about. The meaning of proof in the context of this conversation is the noun form, “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or truth of a statement”.

    Do you think that proof and ambiguity share the same meaning?

  81. Dexter Nelson

    Also, I’l add this on the topic of appeal to authority. Archaeology is not an authority. History is not an authority. Authority is limited to people and organizations; specifically the power to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience.

    A field of study like archaeology and history themselves are not authorities. If they were, then Science too would be an authority, and any scientific argument would be a fallacy of appeal to authority and therefore invalid.

    Matthew 7:2 “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again”. In other words, don’t be a hypocrite.

    If fields of study like archaeology and history are authorities, so is science and this entire article and everything you’ve said in one big gaping fallacy.

  82. Vernard Mercader

    1. The God of the Gaps is not the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument generally deals with what is observable, such as causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it – In other words, based on what we do know, one can infer a God. The God of the Gaps focuses on the “gaps” on science where things either aren’t known, or can’t be explained.

    Wrong. The god of the gaps is a fallacy. It’s a form of argument from ignorance. “because you don’t know how things happened, what you personally believe is true”. Study Philosophy, you will understand it.

    2. Appeal to authority – everything is an appeal to authority can’t be used to dismiss or disregard the claims of experts who have demonstrated in depth knowledge. In other words, you can claim that my argument is invalid, but unless you have the same or higher level of expertise and in depth knowledge, you can’t dismiss the information of those experts. ALSO, you fail to understand appeal to authority. An appeal to authority means “because an expert believes it, I believe it to”. I’ve made no such case. When you asked for proof of my claim, I used EXAMPLES to support MY ideas. At no time did I claim, because an archaeologist says they believe in God, I do too. My argument has always been the same – that there is enough evidence (historically, archaeologically, philosophically, experientially, and so on) that when viewed ALL TOGETHER, one can infer a God. An appeal to authority would be what you first assumed; my teacher believes in God so I believe in God, or some preacher I look up to believes in God so I do too – and as you know now, I didn’t grow up in a religious home and CHOSE to believe in God for other reasons.

    Wrong. In fact, you are making a double fallacy, Appeal to authority, and a non-sequitur. You are appeal to archaeology using the Hammurabi code, etc.—and then arrived at a conclusion, out of nowhere, that it proves the Christian religion is correct. That’s a proof.

    3. At no point did I use miracles as an argument – I showed you something you thought you might find interesting – a documentary where doctors, scientists, physicians, etc. are trying to prove that miracles happen based on medical evidence. It was just something I found interesting and wanted to share, not something used as a case for God.

    Well it’s not interesting, sorry. I still don’t believe in your god. Aside from that, it was not really the topic here, isn’t it?

    4. Burden of proof is simply an obligation to prove one’s assertion, and it falls on anyone who’s making an assertion. So when you made an assertion I said prove it, just as when I made my assertion you said prove it.The difference between you and I, is that I don’t assume all proof is fallacious. In your mind, there can never be or ever will be any kind of proof that isn’t fallacious so no one can ever prove anything.By the way, when you see the word “prove” here, it’s association is action (to prove), making it the proper use of a verb, the result being the noun proof.

    Wrong. You are making up your own “philosophy”. What universe are you from? The Burden of Proof simply falls to the one making a claim of existence. In fact, when I ask you to prove an imaginary entity doesn’t exist, you got trapped, and fell back to asking me instead to “prove it exist”—why? Because you’re a moron.

    5. Ambiguity (meaning of proof) – Not sure what you’re talking about. The meaning of proof in the context of this conversation is the noun form, “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or truth of a statement”. Do you think that proof and ambiguity share the same meaning?

    You are using a dictionary to define “proof” in another way, that’s called Ambiguity.

    AND YOUR SIXTH FALLACY
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3091187d5a623deba97c9d33b2c86900acbe9fc6a7a9186f85a45e55b569aafa.png
    THE TU QUOQUE FALLACY

  83. Dexter Nelson

    Thank you for showing your ignorance and your bias and your hatred.

    You can try and mask it under philosophy, but it’s very obvious. Don’t make appeals to authority like archaeology or history, yet you recommend going to an authority to learn philosophy. Of course what I learn I can’t use because, you know… it’s an appeal to authority.

    Your problem is that I’m not using your definition of words and phrases. FOR EXAMPLE (making that clear that it’s a example), the word fallacy. It’s not “an argument from ignorance”. It is by definition an error in logic, a misconception, even a mistaken belief, but here’s the kicker… It’s not a form of argument.

    Silly me for using, you know – the dictionary and thesaurus as a source of definitions and meanings – of course, to you, since all proofs are fallacies anyway, using the dictionary or a thesaurus is not only a fallacy, but also an appeal to authority.

    I’m done dude. You’re insane. Get out of your head and crack a book. Wait… don’t do that. It’s an appeal to authority.

    I won’t be replying to you anymore. You’re a waste of effort.

  84. Vernard Mercader

    Thank you for showing your ignorance and your bias and your hatred.

    Appeal to emotions Fallacy.

    You can try and mask it under philosophy, but it’s very obvious. Don’t make appeals to authority like archaeology or history, yet you recommend going to an authority to learn philosophy. Of course what I learn I can’t use because, you know… it’s an appeal to authority.

    Appeal to Authority isn’t always wrong. It’s wrong if you don’t have citations. It’s wrong if people (not just me) find your citations bullshit. In fact, you have no citations. In fact, the “archaeological” and “Historical” evidence you say that “proves” Christianity doesn’t really prove Christianity— it only shows there were earlier religions (if not copied by Judaism and Christianity.

    Your problem is that I’m not using your definition of words and phrases. FOR EXAMPLE (making that clear that it’s a example), the word fallacy. It’s not “an argument from ignorance”. It is by definition an error in logic, a misconception, even a mistaken belief, but here’s the kicker… It’s not a form of argument.

    Semantics. point in case, you can’t say something is true because you don’t know how something happened

    Silly me for using, you know – the dictionary and thesaurus as a source of definitions and meanings – of course, to you, since all proofs are fallacies anyway, using the dictionary or a thesaurus is not only a fallacy, but also an appeal to authority. I’m done dude. You’re insane. Get out of your head and crack a book. Wait… don’t do that. It’s an appeal to authority.

    Well you used a dictionary wrong. Used correctly, you can use that “authority”.

    I’m done dude. You’re insane. Get out of your head and crack a book. Wait… don’t do that. It’s an appeal to authority. I won’t be replying to you anymore. You’re a waste of effort.

    That’s funny… you were supposed to make me give up. Strategy failure? Come on man, 3 more comments and it’ll reach 100!

  85. Vernard Mercader

    You’re one of those angry little people running around making yourself feel better about your own inadequacies and insecurities by trying to be an “expert” by trying to attack anything and anyone that threatens the world inside your head anytime you see anyone say something against what you believe. PROOF is that you found my reply, months old and accused me of replying to you from two years ago. You didn’t have shit to say except apologize. And all you’ve done since is shout “Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!” like a mad man and throw insults and accusations. You’re a troll, a bully, and an asshole.

    because you’re wrong and I don’t agree with you? The Special Pleading Fallacy

  86. Vernard Mercader

    EDIT: Also, I’l add this on the topic of appeal to authority. Archaeology is not an authority. History is not an authority. Authority is limited to people and organizations; specifically the power to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience.

    A field of study like archaeology and history themselves are not authorities. If they were, then Science too would be an authority, and any scientific argument would be a fallacy of appeal to authority and therefore invalid.

    See your problem? You focus on very trivial, very little if it ever means something issues (semantics, use of words) instead of focusing on the actual point of the argument (existence of God). You are an inconceivable moron.

    Then use “Appeal to Body of Knowledge” for f*** sake, if you’re so f******** uptight about it. “Body of Knowledge”, “Authority”, this fallacy has the same function (to use a popular name to make your case even though you don’t have a case) and I just used the word “authority” because it’s the general name for that fallacy. Just because the wording isn’t specific to “Archaeology” doesn’t make your original argument correct, and by focusing on this small issue you’re making a fallacy of Tu Quoque again

    —are you really this dense and manipulative?

  87. Christina

    “Big bang theory”

    What does “Theory” mean?

    Theories allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena”.

    So definition of BIG BANG THEORY

    A theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single particle of nearly infinite energy density.

    Since Georges Lemaître first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory!!!!!! I bet you very soon we will hear of a third theory!!!

    In 1927,Lemaître explored the logical consequences of an expanding universe and boldly proposed that it must have originated at a finite point in time. If the universe is expanding, he reasoned, it was smaller in the past, and extrapolation back in time should lead to an epoch when all the matter in the universe was packed together in an extremely dense state. Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology.

    So at the end it’s just a Theory yet to be proven why??? Because all the scientist evidence can’t prove important things, like:

    1-There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions – Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

    If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

    2- If this “dot” spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

    3- Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this “spinning dot” would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

    This is a known “law of science”, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the “Conservation of angular momentum”.

    This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

    So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

    However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

    Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

    4-The Big Bang theory also ignores the “First law of Thermodynamics”, which says: “matter cannot be created or destroyed”

    5-Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” which says:

    “Everything tends towards disorder”

    So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true.. And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic…just look around you: human bodies and everything else, it starts strong or new then become old and weary…

    If I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in, you would think this was absurd to say the very least.

    6- And “Dead objects” can’t give life- means an explosion from a single point on any speed or under any situation or circumstances WILL NEVER give life!!!

    7- When a primeval atom explodes, logically it should create more atoms(dead objects) because it was formed of condensed atoms, but NOT explodes and create different and complicated live things like human bodies, plants and trees and animals and a world with the right temperature and surroundings!!!

    8- Have scientist ever thought, WHERE did this atom come from???? WHO puts it in the air????

    So some higher power had to put this atom in the air!!!!

    As absurd as the “Big Bang” theory is, it is widely accepted because the only other choice is a Divine Creator. And some people will believe the most ridiculous theory, rather than even entertaining the possibility that there could be a Creator.

    As I see it, there are only 2 choices. Either someone created the Earth, or the Earth created itself..

    (despite all the known Laws of Science saying it couldn’t have happened this way).

    Now there are those who say that maybe God used the “big bang” to create the world.

    Well, God is God, and he can do anything he wants but scripture tells us that this is not how he created.

    God’s creation was one of order, not random processes.

    More scientifically proves below for whoever like to read more by:
    Meta Research

    The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

  88. Christina Fahel Ennabe

    “Big bang theory”

    What does “Theory” mean?

    Theories allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena”.

    So definition of BIG BANG THEORY

    A theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single particle of nearly infinite energy density.

    Since Georges Lemaître first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory!!!!!! I bet you very soon we will hear of a third theory!!!

    In 1927,Lemaître explored the logical consequences of an expanding universe and boldly proposed that it must have originated at a finite point in time. If the universe is expanding, he reasoned, it was smaller in the past, and extrapolation back in time should lead to an epoch when all the matter in the universe was packed together in an extremely dense state. Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology.

    So at the end it’s just a Theory yet to be proven why??? Because all the scientist evidence can’t prove important things, like:

    1-There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions – Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

    If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

    2- If this “dot” spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

    3- Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this “spinning dot” would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

    This is a known “law of science”, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the “Conservation of angular momentum”.

    This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

    So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

    However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

    Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

    4-The Big Bang theory also ignores the “First law of Thermodynamics”, which says: “matter cannot be created or destroyed”

    5-Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” which says:

    “Everything tends towards disorder”

    So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true.. And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic…just look around you: human bodies and everything else, it starts strong or new then become old and weary…

    If I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in, you would think this was absurd to say the very least.

    6- And “Dead objects” can’t give life- means an explosion from a single point on any speed or under any situation or circumstances WILL NEVER give life!!!

    7- When a primeval atom explodes, logically it should create more atoms(dead objects) because it was formed of condensed atoms, but NOT explodes and create different and complicated live things like human bodies, plants and trees and animals and a world with the right temperature and surroundings!!!

    8- Have scientist ever thought, WHERE did this atom come from???? WHO puts it in the air????

    So some higher power had to put this atom in the air!!!!

    As absurd as the “Big Bang” theory is, it is widely accepted because the only other choice is a Divine Creator. And some people will believe the most ridiculous theory, rather than even entertaining the possibility that there could be a Creator.

    As I see it, there are only 2 choices.

    Either someone created the Earth,

    or the Earth created itself..

    (despite all the known Laws of Science saying it couldn’t have happened this way).

    Now there are those who say that maybe God used the “big bang” to create the world.

    Well, God is God, and he can do anything he wants but scripture tells us that this is not how he created.

    God’s creation was one of order, not random processes.

    More scientifically proves below for whoever like to read more at:

    Meta Research

    “The Top 30 problems with the Big Bang Theory…

  89. Mwtempleton

    I know that god created everything because of the complex manner in which they were created there is no other that could have created the things that were created take a leaf any leaf it is so simple and yet do complex to know god is the begining of wisdom

  90. Christina Fahel Ennabe

    I really suggest that you watch the movie God Is NOT Dead- part 1..You will have answers to all your questions .. For real.. Just see it, you are not going to loose anything.. Only few dollars to rent it, then you can see part 2

  91. skdk

    yeah and who created the “forever” universe? who created the gravity and the singularity and the force for the singularity to explode? if i said a big chunk of metal blew up and formed your perfectly formed house, you would say im stupid- but thats what the big bang is like. I’m detecting heavy levels of Cognitive dissonance

  92. Vernard Mercader

    Do you realise how incredibly stupid you are? You are asking me who created an eternal universe?

    It’s like you’re asking me where does the circle start.

    Please read through the comments first BEFORE you add something and say something stupid.

    “In the 1st law of thermodynamics, ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED AND CANNOT BE DESTROYED there is a good reason to believe that energy, in fact, before all matter, was eternally existent and the Universe with only pure energy has always existed. And because we know that Energy can turn into matter (hence, the Mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2) all matter from the universe came from a spontaneous generation of energy into matter.

    So, there you go, it’s not GOD energy is the first cause of all things.

    God is a character from a book of Jewish myths it’s not a cosmological theory.

    Energy is an eternally existent entity in the universe, why? Because we can observe it: how? The 1st Law of Thermodynamics Not your god.

  93. Raymond Castillo

    The probability of all of the universe and life itself came from a little explosion is the probability of a print shop exploding and making a dictionary, words, pages flying through the room and BOOM, there's a dictionary. Yeah I didn't think so. The truth is that something as complex as the imperfectly perfect human body and all of life cannot be created out of nothing, the only way that could happen is if God let's it happen, and the only thing that can be created, without having to be created, well that happens to be God. Check Mate.

  94. John

    If Adam was created as an adult man, and placed in a garden with trees, they were created with age. Could it be that the universe was created with age?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.