Brief History of the Universe

Yeah you couldn't be wrong about this, an axiom is something that is presumed to be self evidentially true for the purposes of the argument and not something that is true but we can go into this later if you like.



You're telling me that if the Universe were actually a purple dinosaur called Pete then some other things would be true. Which is perfectly fine, but the Universe is not a purple dinosaur called Pete any more than the first clause in your statement is true. Essentially you've built your whole argument on false assumptions so you can really come to any conclusion that you like and it makes no difference because the starting point was false.
You've built up a straw man to knock it down and make it look like the argument is won.
I've not made any assumptions at all I've made premises based on logical fact . There is no fallacy in the argument at all . The starting point is scientifically verified at the beginning point which avoids the infinite regress one cannot avoid if one takes the view that the universe has an infinite past which it doesn't . An infinite past cannot be reached scientifically ( e.g. entropy) or philosophically ( by reason) so that whatever comes into being has a cause . Hawking ,Dawkins et al. cannot avoid this .
So the universe either created itself or a timeless , space -less personal creator did
 
If it were an axiom it couldnt be false but that is another argument in logic which can be pursued another time .

As was stated -"everything that begins to exist has a cause - the universe began to exist , therefore the universe has a cause . " there is no infinite regress.
You are aware that causality only came into being after the start of the 'big bang'?
 
You are aware that causality only came into being after the start of the 'big bang'?

No he isn't. He is blissfully and totally unaware of what causality actually means on a scientific level and because of this is quoting philosophical arguments instead of actually talking about science.
 
No he isn't. He is blissfully and totally unaware of what causality actually means on a scientific level and because of this is quoting philosophical arguments instead of actually talking about science.
Is Paul Dominic back?
 
The future is self evidently caused by the past. Infinate regress is perfectly acceptable in maths because negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do.
but Real beings only move from past to future and need causes, they are not like numbers.
 
Let's start from scratch with this one.



Have you actually read these things? Do you even know what they say?



What the hell are you talking about? When talking about scientific consensus appeal to consensus is literally a description of the thing that people are doing.

MOND is a model that I have previously said that I'm interested in. IN NO WAY THIS DOES CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT YOU BEING WRONG. I never claimed MOND was anything but unsupported idea at the time, and again, THIS IN NO WAY CHANGES THE FACT THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

PMSL, you claimed there were no mathematical models to support the theory, I pointed you towards them, you said you supported MOND not that you were interested in it, a niche theory after attacking what were only suggestions because they departed from consensus...and if you don't stop shouting at me I'll report you to the mods for your complete lack of respect, mind you given the free rein you seem to have to hurl personal abuse at other posters I doubt you'll get a ban.

pfft, I'm out of here, I'll ban myself from this thread so you can continue. Nighty Night
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.