Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


You siti: Yes, I have evidence the universe has no beginning.
I Sanmario: Yes, I have evidence the universe has a beginning.


Here is one evidence from me, that the universe has a beginning, namely, the nose in our face.

Now, and no excuses, please you present one evidence by which the universe has no beginning.

I will now go and read up on the definitions of evidence and universe from you and leibowde84, and also your both's respective four examples each of evidence and of examples of components of the universe.

We are now going into the much desired logical systematic proof of universe with a beginning from my part, and from your part with no beginning.

 

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


Okay, guys here, I now reproduce the definitions from leibowde84 and siti of evidence and universe, and their four examples each of evidence and of components of the universe.

From Lei Post 257 definitions

Evidence = "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
The Universe = "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies."​

From Lei Post 262 examples

Examples of Evidence:
1. Fingerprints at a crime scene show that a specific person was there
2. DNA at a crime scene used to show that a specific person was there
3. Light from stars that are more than 10 million light years away is evidence that the universe is more than 10 million years old.
4. Rings in a tree are evidence to support a conclusion as to how many years old a tree is.

Examples of components of the universe:
1. Planets
2. Stars
3. Comets
4. Moons​

From Siti Post 268 definitions

Evidence = established facts, direct observations, logical deductions, reasonable arguments
Universe = everything (or if you want a fuller definition, everything that has objective existence - i.e. that could, at least in principle, be observed)​

From siti, no examples yet as of this point in time and date, of evidence of universe without beginning and of components of the universe.


So, dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for siti and lei to react to my evidence of the universe having a beginning, like for example, the nose in our face.

This is going to be very exciting for us all, in the quest for genuine knowledge of the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence!


Annex

Preceding post from Sanmario


You siti: Yes, I have evidence the universe has no beginning.
I Sanmario: Yes, I have evidence the universe has a beginning.


Here is one evidence from me, that the universe has a beginning, namely, the nose in our face.

Now, and no excuses, please you present one evidence by which the universe has no beginning.

I will now go and read up on the definitions of evidence and universe from you and leibowde84, and also your both's respective four examples each of evidence and of examples of components of the universe.

We are now going into the much desired logical systematic proof of universe with a beginning from my part, and from your part with no beginning.

 

[siti]

Here is one evidence from me, that the universe has a beginning, namely, the nose in our face.

Is that it?

 

[siti]

BTW - for the record (with my emphasis)...

From Siti Post 268 definitions
Evidence = established facts, direct observations, logical deductions, reasonable arguments
Universe = everything (or if you want a fuller definition, everything that has objective existence - i.e. that could, at least in principle, be observed)
From siti, no examples yet as of this point in time and date, of evidence of universe without beginning and of components of the universe.

This contention is a lie because I already posted this logical argument about the hypothetical 'cause' of the existence of the universe way back in post #97 [parts in square brackets indicating how the elements are examples of the kinds of evidence I mentioned]

If the cause is changeable then it is no different than the universe itself (in that it - the change itself - requires a cause - can you think of any change that did not have a cause?) [logical deduction]

If the cause is unchangeable then the universe could not have begun to exist (how can anything begin to exist in circumstances where no change is possible?).[logical deduction]

Since the universe does (it appears) exist [established fact], and is (it appears) constantly changing [direct observation], I conclude that it (the ever-changing universe) must have always existed and therefore it had no beginning. [reasonable argument and logical deduction]

 

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


Dear siti, you deny that the nose in our face is a component of the universe?

Don't neglect to present your evidence of the universe not having a beginning.

 

[siti]

Dear siti, you deny that the nose in our face is a component of the universe?

Not at all, just wondering what the f*** your nose has to do with the beginning of the universe - please do enlighten us.

Don't neglect to present your evidence of the universe not having a beginning.

See post #97 and post #285

 

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


We are talking now about evidence, from you siti of the universe not having a beginning, and from me that the universe has a beginning.


No need to digress with alien materials which are not connected with evidence to the universe having a beginning or to having no beginning.

Produce, dear siti, your evidence, and also at this point in time, your examples of evidence, four, and also examples of evidence for universe not having a beginning from components of the universe, also four.


Dear readers here, I want to commend leibowde84, he collaborates in the common task of working as to concur on what is evidence and what is universe, and most constructively presenting his examples of evidence and examples of components of universe.

Can't say the same thing about siti.

Don't be seeking dear siti refuge inside your brain, go out and look for evidence, that is what the determination of universe with a beginning or with no beginning is going to be decided, on evidence, not on your doing all manners of manipulation of words all inside your brain.

Tell you what, dear siti, present your brain as evidence to the universe not having a beginning, then we will examine how your brain which has a beginning all the way to the big bang - at which point of the big bang the physical universe came forth together with time and space - we will examine how and when your brain got started as to come into existence in time and in space.

So, I have presented the nose in our face for evidence that the universe has a beginning, and you let you present your brain as evidence of the universe not having a beginning.

When you write again, first and foremost, present your evidence, I suggest present your brain, as I present the nose in our face.


There, now dear readers, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti is going to react to my present message, will he present his evidence or go into diversionary directions again?

 

[siti]

Oh, definitely diversionary...I have posted my evidence in post #97 and post #285 (at least)...you have not responded to either...but anyway, by way of further diversionary directions...

@Sanmario - I can see why you are suggesting my brain but your nose! But I have a better idea!

Now, I will attempt the impossible by imitating the inimitable style of Dear @Sanmario...

Here is my evidence for the universe not having a beginning...(drum roll)...my arse...ta dahh!!!! Yes I win! Hooray! Three cheers for me.

Now Dear friends we wait with bated breath (and pinched nostrils) @Sanmario's rebuttal!

Now, I'm going away for a few minutes to fart loudly in celebration of my victory! @Sanmario - I suggest you keep your nose out of it for a while!

PS - I admit that was a rather poor imitation - nowhere near 'windy' enough!

 

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


[Part 1 of two parts]


Dear siti, you say:

“Here is my evidence for the universe not having a beginning...(drum roll)...my arse...ta dahh!!!! Yes I win! Hooray! Three cheers for me.”

That is very good because you have come to your senses, with presenting as we are into, evidence for the universe not having a beginning.

Now, produce some more pieces of evidence at least four, to the confirmation of your insistence that the universe does not have a beginning.

You have presented your arse, now just three more examples of evidence.

How does your arse function as evidence to the universe not having a beginning?

What about, it is because your arse has no beginning, that is already in concept a component of the universe without a beginning.

Now, just add more of your body parts, in the near vicinity of your arse, show that they have no beginning, then they will be evidence to your contention that the universe has no beginning.

You see, dear readers here, my idea is that with components from the universe that have a beginning, we will get to more and more evidence of the universe having a beginning, because it is composed of part and parcel with a beginning, that is logical.

So, dear siti, you just produce as also with your arse, more and more body parts in the same vicinity if you will, of your arse, and show readers here that the body parts don’t have a beginning; thus the more you produce of things like your arse, with not beginning, the more nearer you will come, dear siti, to your certainty that the universe has no beginning, because it is composed of part and parcel like your arse, with no beginning – that is logical


Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti will continue in his direction of his arse, to seek to convince us that the universe has no beginning because it is composed of part and parcel like his arse, without a beginning.


[ Go to part 2, next post. ]

 

[Sanmario]

Part 2


And I am glad that he agrees with me that the determination of the unversed having a beginning or not, it must be decided on evidence, not with manipulation of words all inside his brain, though the brain of siti, he can also show to us that it has no beginning, thus adding to the evidence of the universe in his contention, to have no beginning.

In all genuine solemnity, please all people present here, I am very serious with my proof that the universe has a beginning, and that from evidence.

Stay with me, and you will see eventually how I prove from evidence that the universe does have a beginning.

My proof from evidence of the universe having a beginning, it will be like my proof from evidence of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

Bear with me, I will just reproduce my proof from evidence that God exists corresponding to the concept of creator of everything with a beginning.

From Sanmario, see Post #222


This is my again concise, precise, and in clear simple language for the proof from evidence that God exists, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

1. Enunciate the concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. I go to the realm of existence to look for everything with a beginning.
3. I see everything with my eyes and I experience everything I meet as for example the babies at home and the roses in the garden, and everything else, you mention it, it has a beginning.
4. So, there are everything with a beginning that we are living with and in and within.
5. They are evidence of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.
6. Conclusion from evidence: God exists in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

 

[siti]

How does your arse function

 

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus



Dear readers here, things are getting very exciting, and I hope that siti and company my corresponding posters here, they don't get flippant, that is not being academic.

Now, dear siti, I tell you time and again, not to dwell inside your brain with manipulation of words to no purpose but to fool yourself that you have proven anything at all, you have to go outside your brain, into the universe where you will think on reason with your observation of the nose in our face, and in your case, of course your arse, and thus come to intelligent conclusion, on evidence outside your brain, that the universe has beginning, my contention, or has no beginning, your contention.


Dear readers, before we sit down to witness how siti will react and hopefully not with his arse, I want to tell you, you must always monitor your brain and see whether you get lost inside your brain, and forget to go outside to the universe, the one which started to exist together with time and space at the moment of the big bang.

Okay, we can now sit back and witness what gimmick siti will go into now; but the man is losing his connection with the universe of discourse which is in the core on the existence of the universe, and how it is the evidence of God existing, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

We start with the concept, studying it in our mind, then we go outside and guide ourselves by the concept we have formulated in our mind, to search for evidence to anything existing, corresponding to the concept in our mind.

That is a linear line of epistemological procedure, nothing at all of any circular cycling all inside our mind only.

Okay, let us see what siti will be into next, keep posted.

 

[siti]

to the universe, the one which started to exist together with time and space at the moment of the big bang.

Prove it! Prove that the universe began at the Big Bang and I will do my best fart ever in honour of your all-seeing nose!

 

[siti]

Since you expressed a preference for academic rather than flippant, here's a couple of straightforward but trustworthy sources of academic information about the Big Bang (enjoy):

1. Symmetry (a magazine published jointly by Fermilab and SLAC) article about the Big Bang - note the following quote (especially the bits I have underlined):

The Big Bang may not describe the actual beginning of everything.

“Big Bang” broadly refers to the theory of cosmic expansion and the hot early universe. However, sometimes even scientists will use the term to describe a moment in time—when everything was packed into a single point. The problem is that we don’t have either observations or theory that describes that moment, which is properly (if clumsily) called the “initial singularity.”

The initial singularity is the starting point for the universe we observe, but there might have been something that came before.

The difficulty is that the very hot early cosmos and the rapid expansion called “inflation” that likely happened right after the singularity wiped out most—if not all—of the information about any history that preceded the Big Bang. Physicists keep thinking of new ways to check for signs of an earlier universe, and though we haven’t seen any of them so far, we can’t rule it out yet.
​

2. Here's a Phys.org report on research that suggests the Big Bang might not even have happened - note the following excerpts (and by all means follow up by reading the original paper if you can deal with the math - I definitely have to put my thinking cap on for this stuff.)

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
​

And here's a quote from the conclusion of the original paper:

The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.​

And finally, (for now), here's a quote from McGill Physics Prof Robert Brandenberger on the same paper but quoted in Live Science:

"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that,"
​

The "so what" here is that @Sanmario's contention that the universe had a beginning has not been scientifically demonstrated to be true - ever. So whilst many - including some very prominent cosmologists do indeed believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything (a moment of creation we might say), there is absolutely zero scientific evidence in favour of that conclusion and many 21st century cosmologists have abandoned the notion altogether in favour of various forms of cyclic, bouncing, mathematical, ekpyrotic and evolutionary (cosmological natural selection) models in which the universe may be very much older than the observable universe and possibly eternal (or at least, IMO, beginningless). You can look all these up if you've never heard of them - I assure you they are all real models and at least as valid (mathematically) as the standard Big Bang singularity/inflation model. None of them, including the standard Big Bang model can predict exactly what happened before, at, or very shortly (Planck time scale) after the Big Bang.

@Sanmario's task now is to show how his nose , in addition to providing an exquisitely designed location on which to rest his spectacles, refutes the lack of any evidence proving that the universe began at the Big Bang (or at any other time for that matter).

I'll probably be away from RF for a few days but there's plenty read up on. I know @Sanmario will probably not appreciate my efforts - he doesn't really like non-trivial evidence and generally ignores it. But I am hoping that it will be at least a little beneficial to someone. If not, my sincere apologies. I enjoyed putting together and it was not my intention to annoy anyone.

 

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


Dear siti, you say:
“Here is my evidence for the universe not having a beginning...(drum roll)...my arse...ta dahh!!!! Yes I win! Hooray! Three cheers for me.”

Now, I tell you, You are not going to seek escape with bringing in matters that you find in my latest posting, but I will insist that you keep to your arse, and I to the nose in our face: because that is where we are at present.


Your arse is the evidence by which you are certain that the universe has no beginning.

And I, it is the nose in our face that is the evidence by which I am certain that the universe has a beginning.

Explain how your arse evidence ascertains to you that the universe has no beginning, i.e. it has always existed.

From my part I am explaining to all readers, but in particular to you, that the nose in our face is one piece of evidence that confirms for me and readers that the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

How?

Like this, as everything in the universe has a beginning, for example, the nose in our face, it follows that the universe which is the totality of everything with a beginning, it is itself with a beginning.

Now, your turn: You explain, how starting with your arse, you come to the ultimately the ascertainment that the universe has no beginning, i.e., it has always existed.

So, no dice, dear siti, with your attempt to bring me away from the present concern between you and me:

1. You declare that you have your arse for an example of evidence by which you ascertain that the universe is without beginning, explain how.

2. I declare that the nose in our face that is with a beginning is an example of evidence that the universe has a beginning: because it is a part and parcel of the universe; so, as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning - it is simple logic, when all the parts of a whole are with a beginning, then the whole, i.e., the universe, is wholly with a beginning.

When you deny that not everything in the universe has a beginning, then present something in the universe that is without a beginning.


I am not going to get derailed by you from the present concern, so don't waste time and effort trying to divert me from the present concern in No. 1 and No. 2 above.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti is going to try next, when he is cornered by me into No. 1 and No. 2 above: for I am not going to get diverted by him into whatever he is leading me [into], but certainly away from the present concern which is No. 1 and No. 2 above.

Nice try at diversion, dear siti, but no dice, I am not falling for your diversionary gimmick.

Keep to your arse as I keep to the nose in our face, you are still with your arse and I with the nose in our face.

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84

Dear readers and posters, and in particular siti and leibowde84, this is my second call to you, to reply to my immediately preceding post, here I will reproduce it below, in Annex.

It is now in my place 03:30 a.m. Thursday, April 13, 2017, and my immediately preceding post here was transmitted at 01:45 a.m. earlier.

It is Maundy Thursday in my place today, all offices government and business are into no work status, in deference to the observance of Holy Week in this predominantly Roman Catholic country.

Okay, siti and lei, this is my second call to you, reply to my immediately preceding post which is reproduced below in Annex.


Dear readers, let us all sit back and witness with bated breath when and how siti and lei will react to my post of concern, see Annex.

Annex

You still have not addressed the flaw in your argument. Your argument and concept of God are circular. You assume your conclusion in your definition of God as "the creator of everything with at beginning". If we just assume without any evidence that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, then we must assume that God exists. So, your argument is so severely flawed that we cannot continue until you rectify it.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

I will not answer any questions from you until you address this impassable flaw in your concept of God. Again, I am not saying that you are wrong with your concept, but you have to support your conclusion that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

If you can prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, then you would have proved that God exists.

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84

Dear readers and posters, and in particular siti and leibowde84, this is my second call to you, to reply to my immediately preceding post, here I will reproduce it below, in Annex.

It is now in my place 03:30 a.m. Thursday, April 13, 2017, and my immediately preceding post here was transmitted at 01:45 a.m. earlier.

It is Maundy Thursday in my place today, all offices government and business are into no work status, in deference to the observance of Holy Week in this predominantly Roman Catholic country.

Okay, siti and lei, this is my second call to you, reply to my immediately preceding post which is reproduced below in Annex.


Dear readers, let us all sit back and witness with bated breath when and how siti and lei will react to my post of concern, see Annex.

Annex

Again, you are not being respectful in this debate. Until you cease to use a circular argument in assuming your conclusion in your concept of God, we cannot continue.

You must prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. If you do that, you have already succeeded in proving that God exists.

 

[columbus]

as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning - it is simple logic, when all the parts of a whole are with a beginning, then the whole, i.e., the universe, is wholly with a beginning.

Since it has been demonstrated (in the posts you have ignored) that nothing with objective existence has a beginning, it is logical to provisionally conclude that the universe itself has no beginning either.
So God, by your definition, doesn't have objective existence.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84


Dear siti:
Do you have evidence that the universe has no beginning?

Don't reply to anything else, just that question, and don't make excuses, just say yes or no, like this:

Yes, I have evidence the universe has no beginning.
Or
No, I have no evidence the universe has no beginning.


Here is my answer to my question, Do I have evidence that the universe have a beginning?
YES, I have evidence that the universe has a beginning.


Then when you have answered any way, yes or not, we will continue from that point onward; but you know already I am saying Yes I have evidence that the universe has a beginning.


Okay, dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for siti to reply to my request.

You haven't provided any evidence that the universe has a beginning. You point to noses, which in no way supports your argument that the universe has a beginning. So, please try again.

My claim is that we do not know whether the universe has a beginning or not. That's it. We don't know. And, since we don't know, and you have failed to produce any evidence supporting your claim that the universe has a beginning, we are left to assume that I am right in that we do not know either way.

Thus, the universe having a beginning cannot be used as evidence for your argument.

Also, you have failed to prove why God is the creator of everything with a beginning. Please do so.

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


Dear siti, you deny that the nose in our face is a component of the universe?

Don't neglect to present your evidence of the universe not having a beginning.

Just because a component of the universe has a starting point does not in any way mean that the universe itself had a beginning. That is a ludicrous assumption.

Do you have any actual evidence that the universe had a beginning?

REMEMBER: I am not claiming that the universe had no beginning. I am claiming that we don't know either way.