INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

I prefer a far more objective approach, which is to wait for more information to come in before drawing any conclusion one way or another.

Did you do that before asking your spouse to Marry you? What about before having kids? If you sit around and wait for all the data to come in you will never act and die without making many of the commitments necessary to be useful in many ways.

 

[metis]

Did you do that before asking your spouse to Marry you? What about before having kids? If you sit around and wait for all the data to come in you will never act and die without making many of the commitments necessary to be useful in many ways.

Non sequitur. What I have repeated observed is that asking could lead to marriage and having sex could lead to kids.

How about the phrase "Accidents causes people"?

 

[1robin]

Non sequitur. What I have repeated observed is that asking could lead to marriage and having sex could lead to kids.

I think you missed my point. I was saying that many decisions must be made before all the facts are known. Faith is one of that type.

How about the phrase "Accidents causes people"?

I am somewhat lost by your response here.

 

[metis]

I think you missed my point. I was saying that many decisions must be made before all the facts are known. Faith is one of that type.

Faith decisions can be but don't have to be. Secondly, I haven't said all the facts need to be in before making a decision. As a matter of fact, I don't at all agree that all of the facts need to be in. We will never know all the facts because to successfully do so would mean we're omniscient.

I am somewhat lost by your response here.

I was joking.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you can’t see how your quotation was confusing and/or misleading, then you aren’t paying attention because I just explained it to you.

You can cry about the page numbering all day long, I am more concerned about the context of the discussion, and the fact of the matter is, regardless of what page it is on, imaginary time is not a real description of time. That is what the issue is.

Dr. Craig is supposed to be a scholar, as you pointed out. If he is, then he should know how to properly source his material.

I've already stated what could have been the case. But nevertheless, it doesn't matter anyway, because Dr. Craig has critisized that model in both his public and his written work and those quotes only help justify his critiques.

If you had shown where you got your information from in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. You cited Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time, but that is not where you got the quote from. The source of the quote is Hawking’s book, not Craig’s book. I looked through Hawking’s book because I happen to own it, and like I said, I had to waste a bunch of time reading practically the entire chapter to figure out where the two lone sentences came from.

That is what the ellipses were for. Besides, a little extra reading can't hurt Like I keep stressing, the fact of the matter is imaginary time is not a real description of time. Alexander Vilenkin knows it, John Barrow knows it, Dr. Craig knows it, and Mr. Hawking knows it.

The point in referencing your sources in the first place is so that the reader does not have to waste a bunch of time searching all over the place for the original quotation. And normally, we cite the PRIMARY source, rather than the secondary one. That’s all I’m pointing out here. Sorry, but I don’t like wasting time.

Even if I cited Dr. Craig as the secondary source, you would have still been crying about how he got the page numbers wrong, and thus we would still be having this conversation. I apologize for "wasting" your time, but I'm quite sure you will be alright.

It left out all explanation as to what he was talking about. So, not quite.

Well, when I read the quote it appears as if he is talking about imaginary time, so I understood what he was talking about. I can't speak for other people, though.

No, the confusion comes from you providing a completely inaccurate source.

The source was very accurate and as you seen the quote was in the book. And for the fourth time, if Dr. Craig had the hardcover of the book and you had the paper back of the book (or vise versa), you can expect the page numbers to be off by a little depending on the size and the font differentials. However the case may be, the quote was there in all of its accuracy and "we" apologize for making you have to read a few more seconds to get to where you wanted to go. :sad4:

I see an improperly sourced reference. This is why I always go to the PRIMARY source.

That’s not all that matters. It matters if the quote is accurate. THAT’S what matters most here.

:sad4:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Says the guy who can’t properly source his material and talks about subjects he admits he knows nothing about.

Get both the paperback and hardcover versions of the book and tell me if pages match. Yeah, do that for me

What do the ellipses have to do with anything?? It had absolutely nothing to do with my difficulty finding the quotations.

Because you were crying about how much reading you had to do to get the exact quote, remember?

I already addressed this in another post. And at this point all I can tell you is to read the book, or at least the chapter because you haven’t quite got it right. He points out that imaginary numbers exist as a mathematical concept and that differences between “real” and “imaginary” time could actually be meaningless.

Regardless, on this model the universe still begins to exist. Remember, that was the original discussion, whether or not the universe had a beginning or it didn't. Even on his the universe began to exist, it just so happens that him using imaginary time is a complete waste of time (no pun intended) because it isn't a realistic view of time anyway. So he is stuck with a double whammy.

Second, we live in time, right? Regardless of how you view time, there can't be an infinite amount of time...the past cannot be eternal, and this holds true regardless of whether you want to call it imaginary time or "real time".

Good, that’s what scientists are supposed to do. What this shows us is what I’ve been saying for a while now (others also). The answer we have to give for the origin and duration of the existence of the universe(s)
at this point should be “I don’t know.”

The past cannot be eternal...time cannot be infinite...so therefore, time had a beginning. This is a FACT. So what can be the originator of time? What can give time itself a beginning?? Only something that is TIMELESS, right? Hmm, we are getting more closer to God as we speak.

Not really. Somebody already addressed this point, so I won’t bother doing it here.

Sorry, I have a big problem with quote mining because it is dishonest and misleading. Call me a crybaby all you want, but if you tried to pull this crap in the academic community, you wouldn’t make it very long.

What? The quote was in the book. I can understand if the quote wasn't in the book at all. But the quote was in the book. What are you talking about dishonesty as if someone is blatantly misleading you???

LOL Now it doesn’t matter what he said. Don’t quote him then, if you don’t actually care.

Actually, I was talking about Stephen Hawking. Why would I say that about Dr. Craig when in the context I said he "contradicts himself"...when I praised Dr. Craig elsewhere?

If he’s a physicist, as you contended he was, then I seriously doubt he doesn’t understand physics.

And Dr. Craig understands physics to a certain degree to where he can debate some of the most prominent physists in the world.

I’ve watched dozens of Dr. Craig debates as well and I’ve seen him being questioned on physics many times. I saw one video where a physicist straight out told him he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about.

Please send me the link to that video. Maybe I missed that one (doubt it). Lets see, link, please???

Don’t bother trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. Prove your own claim.

First we have to establish whether time itself had a beginning. Do you accept or deny this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please send me the link to that video. Maybe I missed that one (doubt it). Lets see, link, please???

How about I improperly source it for you so you have to spend your entire afternoon trying to find the right one?



I'll respond to the rest of these posts later on, when I have more time.

 

[1robin]

Faith decisions can be but don't have to be. Secondly, I haven't said all the facts need to be in before making a decision.

Of what value and use are faith decisions when your dead? I doubt if the source of the universe will be known when our grandchildren are dead and that is what we are discussing I believe. We have more than enough facts to indicate conclusively that the universe nor natural created the universe.

As a matter of fact, I don't at all agree that all of the facts need to be in. We will never know all the facts because to successfully do so would mean we're omniscient.

Exactly.

I was joking.

I thought so but have thought so and been wrong so often that I ask first.

 

[metis]

Of what value and use are faith decisions when your dead? I doubt if the source of the universe will be known when our grandchildren are dead and that is what we are discussing I believe. We have more than enough facts to indicate conclusively that the universe nor natural created the universe.

When I'm dead, I'm dead (how philosophical of me, eh? ). Now, is there any kind of heaven, reincarnation, rebirth, etc.? I haven't a clue, nor do I worry about it one iota. Whatever happens, happens. My main objective with the limited time I have remaining is to help others enjoy their life much like I have enjoyed mine. I start with trying to spoil the grandkids as much as possible.

I thought so but have thought so and been wrong so often that I ask first.

Thank you for asking.

 

[1robin]

When I'm dead, I'm dead (how philosophical of me, eh? ). Now, is there any kind of heaven, reincarnation, rebirth, etc.? I haven't a clue, nor do I worry about it one iota. Whatever happens, happens. My main objective with the limited time I have remaining is to help others enjoy their life much like I have enjoyed mine. I start with trying to spoil the grandkids as much as possible.

You comments really throw me off. Are you not in agreement with Judaism and possibly Buddhism? If so how can you be neutral on those subjects. I am a veteran and I can assure you that when life seems fleeting all kinds of things we do not worry about (so we can obsess about meaningless things) takes on a whole new importance. Of all of the great questions in life the big theological ones outstrip them all. I used to tell myself that we can only resolve a few (if we are lucky) of the big questions in life and what is more deserving of the effort than Heaven, meaning, purpose, and God? Why master world of war craft and never find God? Why build the newest widget and end up loosing everything? Why strengthen temporary ties and ignore the permanent ones? Can we at least agree that the questions of Heaven and Hell according to most faiths must be resolved this side of the dirt and all other concepts pale in comparison? Like Christ said why gain the world if in the end we lose our soul?

Thank you for asking.

No problem.

 

[metis]

You comments really throw me off. Are you not in agreement with Judaism and possibly Buddhism?

You seem to be assuming that I'm not in agreement with Buddhism, so what makes you think that? With Judaism, yes there is a problem-- except with where I'm at.

If so how can you be neutral on those subjects.

Easy-- I don't like jumping to conclusions. Why do I supposedly have to believe in a multiverse, for example, when there's insufficient evidence to conclude one way or another?

I am a veteran and I can assure you that when life seems fleeting all kinds of things we do not worry about (so we can obsess about meaningless things) takes on a whole new importance. Of all of the great questions in life the big theological ones outstrip them all. I used to tell myself that we can only resolve a few (if we are lucky) of the big questions in life and what is more deserving of the effort than Heaven, meaning, purpose, and God? Why master world of war craft and never find God? Why build the newest widget and end up loosing everything? Why strengthen temporary ties and ignore the permanent ones?

Which is assumption that there are "permanent ones". Frankly, I have no reason to believe anything is permanent as our experience seems to suggest otherwise-- everything appears to change, and nothing appears to stay the same.

Can we at least agree that the questions of Heaven and Hell according to most faiths must be resolved this side of the dirt and all other concepts pale in comparison?

I don't know if either exists as where's the evidence for them? So, why do I supposedly have to believe one way or the other? Am I only to do good so as to get into heaven? One of our greatest sages, Moshe Maimonides, taught that to only do good in order to get into heaven is nothing but sheer selfishness. Instead, he suggested that we should be thankful and appreciative that we had a chance to live.

Like Christ said why gain the world if in the end we lose our soul?

If a deity was to be so mean to condemn people of conscience, then that deity I believe is nothing but evil as that would be "political correctness" on steroids. Even numerous verses in the "N.T." suggests that this is a wrong interpretation, such as what we read in Matthew 25 (the Parable of the Sheep & Goats)and the Sermon on the Mount. The early church certainly didn't operate under the auspices that all that one needed to do was have p.c. beliefs, as belief is where one started-- not ended. In Koine Greek, "love" ("agape") is a noun that implies action. IOW, one doesn't just have agape, they must live it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe no one rises above dabbler as far as the Quantum is concerned and I do not even get to that level. Whatever information I give about the Quantum comes from the best of the dabblers.

But you are not able to win debates with experts about what the best of the dabblers say, so what difference does it make how well you do in debates with other amateurs? You are also not able to win debates with experts in many other fields, such as biology, and biblical criticism and history. Your positions on many issues are primarily based upon faith, not physics, biology, philosophy, and biblical criticism and history. If your positions were based upon an excellent knowledge of Christian apologetics, which includes science, philosophy, and biblical criticism and history, you would be able to win debates against experts, but you can't.

This is the latest and most accepted cosmology: Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning” Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning” | Wintery Knight

But Vilenkin himself has said that his research does not give religious people much of an advantage. You have said that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. Unless you are willing to claim that at a forum where many members are experts, such as Physics Forums, which has over 385,000 members, and win your debates there, there are not any good reasons why anyone should take you seriously.

 

[Agnostic75]

The vast majority of non-Christians in the world who will die during the next twelve months already believe in various gods. From a conservative Christian perspective, they will be no better off than atheists who die.

You keep saying these same things and I have no idea what this even means. What various God's are you talking about? The Trinity, pluralism, paganism. What? It's one bizarre claim.

About 32% of the people in the world are Christians. About 45% of the people in the world are Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. From a conservative Christian perspective, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who die will be no better off than atheists will be. Atheists are far less numerous than those groups of religious people are, but for some strange reason, you spend an inordinate amount of your time discussing atheism.

Nope, I used to be a prayer councilor for a large Church. Every single Christian I have ever talked agreed to two things. Our former atheism was a result of not liking God are aspects of him and our arguments made with such insistence because they we were very insecure about our position. I have yet to see an exception though I am sure quite a few exist. Read any former atheist testimony
site and you will find the same.

You do not what you are talking about. Most atheists believe that Hitler exists even though Hitler was a bad person. Therefore, most atheists would not claim that the God of the Bible does not exist merely because they do not like him.

It is theoretically possible that a God exists who is not an Omni God, and is not aware that humans exist, and is amoral. Most atheists will reject that claim, but they obviously would not reject it because they do not like an amoral God.

If it turns out that God is a God other than the God of the Bible, and he provides atheists with a comfortable eternal life, most atheists would be very pleased with that.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but much of the Bible is needlessly confusing is a God inspired it, including the story of Adam and Eve, the story of the flood, and the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus in Egypt.

As Dr. Richard Carrier shows in an article at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html, the formation of the New Testament canon was questionable.

What evidence do you have that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb?

Surely chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. There is no doubt that if all American Christians had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, the majority of them would have become Muslims.

An article at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm shows that people who are female, have less education, and have lower incomes, are far more likely to become creationists than most other groups of people are.

The same article mentions a research study that says that 99.86% of U.S. experts accept macro evolution. If those same experts accepted creationism, you would definitely use that as evidence to support your claim that all of macro evolution has problems, but since the experts accept macro evolution, you do not mind claiming that all of macro evolution has problems. If the Bible said that macro evolution is true, you would not have said that all of macro evolution has problems. That proves that your objections to macro evolution are primarily based upon a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve, not upon science.

If you debated an expert on macro evolution, it would quickly become obvious that your knowledge of biology is rudimentary at best. You have been bluffing regarding your discussions with skeptics in this thread because you know that they are not experts. Sure, skeptics at this forum cannot adequately refute some of your arguments, but you cannot adequately refute many arguments from thousands of skeptic experts.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How about I improperly source it for you so you have to spend your entire afternoon trying to find the right one?



I'll respond to the rest of these posts later on, when I have more time.

Save yourself the trouble. I apologize for not properly citing the original source, not that I think it mattered anyway, but I can see where you are coming from. I would like for you drop the rest of the stuff and respond directly to the issue about time/infinity, because this is a philosophical issue, and it holds true regardless of any cosmological model one may posit.

 

[1robin]

You seem to be assuming that I'm not in agreement with Buddhism, so what makes you think that? With Judaism, yes there is a problem-- except with where I'm at.

You have said you are unconcerned about Heaven, Hell, Etc.... and I find that inconsistent with a person who has adopted theological positions. If you did not care how did you study them in order to agree or disagree with them?

Easy-- I don't like jumping to conclusions. Why do I supposedly have to believe in a multiverse, for example, when there's insufficient evidence to conclude one way or another?

If Christianity is correct then you must decide that issue in the few years we have this side of he dirt. One common argument among thousands is that it appears almost all reliable evidence points to a finite universe which is just another peg in the board of Christianity. That one aspect alone is not al that meaningful but if you have a wait and see attitude you may not like what you see.

Which is assumption that there are "permanent ones". Frankly, I have no reason to believe anything is permanent as our experience seems to suggest otherwise-- everything appears to change, and nothing appears to stay the same.

It is not an assumption it is a evidenced reasoned faith. I have evidence (though it is personal) that there is a transcendent reality and billions also have that same evidence. That is at least enough to indicate the concept needs serious consideration even from those without this evidence and experience. Even as a rabid atheist I considered these issues of vital importance. There is no hero in neutrality and if you choose not to decide you have made a choice.

I don't know if either exists as where's the evidence for them? So, why do I supposedly have to believe one way or the other? Am I only to do good so as to get into heaven? One of our greatest sages, Moshe Maimonides, taught that to only do good in order to get into heaven is nothing but sheer selfishness. Instead, he suggested that we should be thankful and appreciative that we had a chance to live.

Doing good does not get anyone to Heaven. Establishing a relationship with Christ through faith and being born again does. Merit based salvation is philosophically impossible. If you wish to switch to evidence for Christianity that is fine but I can only do that subject alone (not in combination with other general discussions) because it is very very involved.

If a deity was to be so mean to condemn people of conscience, then that deity I believe is nothing but evil as that would be "political correctness" on steroids. Even numerous verses in the "N.T." suggests that this is a wrong interpretation, such as what we read in Matthew 25 (the Parable of the Sheep & Goats)and the Sermon on the Mount. The early church certainly didn't operate under the auspices that all that one needed to do was have p.c. beliefs, as belief is where one started-- not ended. In Koine Greek, "love" ("agape") is a noun that implies action. IOW, one doesn't just have agape, they must live it.

That's a description formed through opinion and ignorance (not knowing) and does not describe the Christian doctrine. We all commit sins of such magnitude that we are not fit for heaven. God paid the price (in blood and pain) to rectify what we created if only we admit the facts. Admitting we are wrong (especially that wrong) is not a normal Human capacity but is true none the less. I hold with no PC concept ever invented and Christianity is anything but PC. It is the most sophisticated and complex doctrine in human history and I get the impression you are not very familiar with it. I can answer general questions, elaborate on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and salvation, or evidence that the Bible's claims are true but not all three. If you pick only one we can get really into it if you wish.

 

[1robin]

But you are not able to win debates with experts about what the best of the dabblers say, so what difference does it make how well you do in debates with other amateurs?

Winning is far down the list of my priorities and you have no idea what I would or would not win anyway. I am here primarily to supply answers to new Christians that like me are very ignorant when we are first saved. It took me over 20 years to build up a familiarity with the tough questions and answers and wish I knew what I now know long ago. I do not get this challenge to take on professionals you keep making. Why?

You are also not able to win debates with experts in many other fields, such as biology, and biblical criticism and history. Your positions on many issues are primarily based upon faith, not physics, biology, philosophy, and biblical criticism and history. If your positions were based upon an excellent knowledge of Christian apologetics, which includes science, philosophy, and biblical criticism and history, you would be able to win debates against experts, but you can't.

I am not interested in your opinion concerning things that are irrelevant. If I had a philosophy or divinity degree and was on the debate circuit this might be relevant but then again we would probably not be speaking. What is the point of these claims anyway? I might as well say you could not beat Muhammad Ali in a boxing match or 300BC Sparta in a battle. So?

But Vilenkin himself has said that his research does not give religious people much of an advantage. You have said that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. Unless you are willing to claim that at a forum where many members are experts, such as Physics Forums, which has over 385,000 members, and win your debates there, there are not any good reasons why anyone should take you seriously.

I have said this over and over and am getting sick of it.

Vilenkin is a theological novice and not an authority outside cosmology or physics. I do not use him nor care what he says about theology no more than I care about what
what Dawkins thinks about military strategy. The Bible posits a finite universe, Vilenkin and most others posit a finite universe. The end.

Physics forums and physics its self have nothing beyond showing the universe is finite (which they have done) to input to the discussion. If you want to see why scientists are such bad theologians even concerning scientific things let me know and I will give you a link where there exists one of the best discussions I have ever seen where professional theologians, mathematicians, and philosophers literally tear the guts out of Hawking's book on design. It is well worth the time spent.

 

[1robin]

About 32% of the people in the world are Christians. About 45% of the people in the world are Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. From a conservative Christian perspective, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who die will be no better off than atheists will be. Atheists are far less numerous than those groups of religious people are, but for some strange reason, you spend an inordinate amount of your time discussing atheism.

1. I have no idea what point your making nor why you said any of this.
2. What does this have to do with your claiming most Christians believe in other God's because they do not.

You do not what you are talking about. Most atheists believe that Hitler exists even though Hitler was a bad person. Therefore, most atheists would not claim that the God of the Bible does not exist merely because they do not like him.

We are going to just have to disagree here. Christians believe (because they are the only ones who have lived it) that being an atheist means you have a spiritual blindness that a lack of faith mandates. This means that only once you have repented can you clearly see why and what you used to think. Every single Christian I have ever met would agree that their atheism was two things. Based on resentment of a kind and rebellion and they were never as secure about it as they claimed. Even though you do not have a single reason and lack the experience to disagree with this I imagine you will anyway and so It is not resolvable. You have no idea how blind you are until you can see. You do not understand sin until it is resisted.

It is theoretically possible that a God exists who is not an Omni God, and is not aware that humans exist, and is amoral. Most atheists will reject that claim, but they obviously would not reject it because they do not like an amoral God.

Most atheist rejection of faith is concerning a specific faith, mine. Whenever Hitchens or Dawkins writes a God is not great book it is usually my God they are saying is not great.

If it turns out that God is a God other than the God of the Bible, and he provides atheists with a comfortable eternal life, most atheists would be very pleased with that.

That is one bunch of hypotheticals you got yourself. After about 3 it gets kind of meaningless.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but much of the Bible is needlessly confusing is a God inspired it, including the story of Adam and Eve, the story of the flood, and the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus in Egypt.

But the source of the confusion is us not the Bible or God.

As Dr. Richard Carrier shows in an article at The Formation of the New Testament Canon, the formation of the New Testament canon was questionable.

Now this stuff is my kind of subject. I would love to stick with these issues and really get into why claims like this are ridiculous but to do so requires that it be the only subject. If you agree then let me know and we will get very serious about the Bible's pedigree.

What evidence do you have that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb?

Actually that is one of three facts almost every NT scholar on either side agrees took place. I will get into the evidence once you answer this questions. Why are the Biblical sources not enough alone? Countless facts on the ancient world are taught as such based on one man's word but only for the Bible are four not enough. Why?

Surely chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. There is no doubt that if all American Christians had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, the majority of them would have become Muslims.

This is another repeat and so am not answering again. Do you think I forget prior times you present the same points?

An article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation shows that people who are female, have less education, and have lower incomes, are far more likely to become creationists than most other groups of people are.

The same article mentions a research study that says that 99.86% of U.S. experts accept macro evolution. If those same experts accepted creationism, you would definitely use that as evidence to support your claim that all of macro evolution has problems, but since the experts accept macro evolution, you do not mind claiming that all of macro evolution has problems. If the Bible said that macro evolution is true, you would not have said that all of macro evolution has problems. That proves that your objections to macro evolution are primarily based upon a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve, not upon science.

If you debated an expert on macro evolution, it would quickly become obvious that your knowledge of biology is rudimentary at best. You have been bluffing regarding your discussions with skeptics in this thread because you know that they are not experts. Sure, skeptics at this forum cannot adequately refute some of your arguments, but you cannot adequately refute many arguments from thousands of skeptic experts.

More repeats and stuff I have no idea why you bring up. Let's stick with the Bible if that is ok.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Winning is far down the list of my priorities and you have no idea what I would or would not win anyway. I am here primarily to supply answers to new Christians that like me are very ignorant when we are first saved. It took me over 20 years to build up a familiarity with the tough questions and answers and wish I knew what I now know long ago. I do not get this challenge to take on professionals you keep making. Why?



I am not interested in your opinion concerning things that are irrelevant. If I had a philosophy or divinity degree and was on the debate circuit this might be relevant but then again we would probably not be speaking. What is the point of these claims anyway? I might as well say you could not beat Muhammad Ali in a boxing match or 300BC Sparta in a battle. So?


I have said this over and over and am getting sick of it.

Vilenkin is a theological novice and not an authority outside cosmology or physics. I do not use him nor care what he says about theology no more than I care about what
what Dawkins thinks about military strategy. The Bible posits a finite universe, Vilenkin and most others posit a finite universe. The end.

Physics forums and physics its self have nothing beyond showing the universe is finite (which they have done) to input to the discussion. If you want to see why scientists are such bad theologians even concerning scientific things let me know and I will give you a link where there exists one of the best discussions I have ever seen where professional theologians, mathematicians, and philosophers literally tear the guts out of Hawking's book on design. It is well worth the time spent.

LOL...oh boy.

 

[1robin]

LOL...oh boy.

That was so inspiring and undeniable I might change my mind. LOL. Who can withstand such scholarship, and mastery of the subject matter? Seriously what is the point of pure rhetoric like this? Was anything advanced? Was anything unknown revealed? Was anything resolved?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That was so inspiring and undeniable I might change my mind. LOL. Who can withstand such scholarship, and mastery of the subject matter? Seriously what is the point of pure rhetoric like this? Was anything advanced? Was anything unknown revealed? Was anything resolved?

Nothing ever gets resolved with you though, so I lol'd at your comment because of the irony I saw in it, be that accurate or not.

You have a problem with it? Ignore it, otherwise I will continue to Lol at every comment you make because I simply have the Free Will to do so. Call it my God Given Right.
:clap