HeadingNorth Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 What makes you think a creator would have needed to be a product of anything? I don't; you are the one trying to argue that things which exist, must have a cause. I've twice shown you why that argument is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Time is a product of this Universe. It cannot have existed when the Universe did not. Why not? Just because nothing much happened at that instant doesn't mean there can't have been a time say half an hour before the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Why not? Because it's a product of the Universe. You might as well ask why South Yorkshire couldn't exist before Yorkshire did. The question is senseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Cleverly misquoted. Ok I'll have another try. If something has existed forever why does there have to be a cause for this state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Because it's a product of the Universe. Surely this is only a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I don't; you are the one trying to argue that things which exist, must have a cause. I've twice shown you why that argument is flawed. You then undermined the premise of your own logical reasoning with this old chestnut. What makes you think they have to be a product of anything? Are you still stuck in that infinite regressive loop?How come the quantum fluctuation theory isn't flawed by the infinite regressive loop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Surely this is only a theory.Didn't you know, scientific theories are more theoretically probable than general theories. Must be a numbers thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Didn't you know, scientific theories are more theoretically probable than general theories. Must be a numbers thing. If you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Didn't you know, scientific theories are more theoretically probable than general theories. Must be a numbers thing. That doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 That doesn't make sense. The layman's understanding of "theory" is that it's just something someone thought up once. In science, that's referred to as a speculation or conjecture, and doesn't even become a hypothesis until it's formally presented and logically consistent. Scientists won't call anything a Theory until there is convincing evidence that it's true. So in a way it does make sense. A scientific theory already has solid, convincing evidence behind it. A layman's theory may well not have any evidence at all behind it - in fact there could very well be evidence against it that the layman isn't aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.