First cause of the universe.

[firedragon]

You're not using the correct definition of a god. The correct definition of god does not limit gods to being eternal.

Is that based on natural theology, or fiction?

 

[Kfox]

You indicated a lack of understanding of the start of the universe as shown by this quote with a bit of a strawman in it:

"Because the idea that something can just pop into existence does not make sense to me, something existing eternally makes more sense IMO."

Are you suggesting the Universe had an actual start?

 

[Audie]

Is that based on natural theology, or fiction?

What is the difference

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you suggesting the Universe had an actual start?

The universe as we know it had a start. And some physicists have good reason to believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything.

 

[firedragon]

What is the difference

Please do some research on that. If you dont know the difference between those two, its not good. But Im sure you will easily figure out if you do a small study on the two.

 

[MikeF]

Is that based on natural theology, or fiction?

Really? You're gonna ask this question and not ask to continue this point in a new thread?

 

[Audie]

Really? You're gonna ask this question and not ask to continue this point in a new thread?

Ya wanna thread on distinctions without a difference?

 

[firedragon]

Really? You're gonna ask this question and not ask to continue this point in a new thread?

Yep.

 

[MikeF]

Ya wanna thread on distinctions without a difference?

This was a bit of poking fun based on post # 43 and 44. When @firedragon made post #29 in response to you, as it happens.

 

[MikeF]

Yep.

I suppose the irony is lost on you.

 

[firedragon]

I suppose the irony is lost on you.

Nope.

 

[MikeF]

Nope.

 

[firedragon]

 

[Audie]

This was a bit of poking fun based on post # 43 and 44. When @firedragon made post #29 in response to you, as it happens.

Judt kinda joining in.
Nobody would want a thread like that!

 

[Audie]

I suppose the irony is lost on you.

Religion often confers an odd sort of immunity

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope, that is another non sequitur. In this case you are demonstrably wrong. In physics there is both positive energy and negative energy. Negative energy is in the form of gravitational potential energy. If the two are equal the total energy of the universe would be zero. Guess what some clever astrophysicists did?

Pretended this is significant?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you suggesting the Universe had an actual start?

It is possible that time does not go back infinitely far. If that is the case, the 'start' of time is also the 'start' of the universe. it is likely, though, that there was not a first instant.

 

[Polymath257]

Pretended this is significant?

It is significant. If the total energy of the universe, including gravity, is zero, then there is no violation of conservation of energy in the formation of the universe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Natural processes are "natural" because no agency is needed.

What hogwash. Order doesn't spring from chaos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretended this is significant?

He did not pretend. You really should try to learn if you want to debate the sciences.