danot Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'll finish it off for you. The scientists create the implausible theories.........and then test them to see if they have any validity. And??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 So your opinion then must be that the universe doesn't exist. Why's that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Why's that?? Because you say there is no plausible reason for it to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Yes they are as implausible. All scientific theories are constructed on the assumption that the universe doesn't need a cause for it's existence. Name one scientific theory that explains why the universe can exist without cause. That's down to basic logic - which I've pointed out at least four times already. If you insist that things can only exist because something has caused them, you are caught in an infinite regressive loop. If you do not so insist, then the Universe doesn't need a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Sooner or later you have no choice but to except that something can exist without cause or creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 And??????? If an implausible theory checks out by following a process of thorough scientific vigour, and this is also thoroughly reviewed by a group of respected peers, the implausible theory becomes a lot less implausible. The creation argument, cannot be proved or disproved, as it is a faith. You don't have to know that God exists, and you don't have to try to disprove scientific theories, it is enough to believe that God created the Universe. That should be enough for true believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 A perfect vacuum would be one with no particles in it at all, which is impossible to achieve in practice, so when referring to a vacuum we are usually talking about a partial vacuum. The vacuum in a vacuum flask isn’t entirely devoid of matter. One definition of vacuum is A space or container from which the air has been completely or partly removed. Monkeys and typewriters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Because you say there is no plausible reason for it to exist.I didn't say that, I said- scientists are unable to give a plausible explanation for why the universe exists without cause. Allow me to clarify- I don't believe the universe could exist without having a cause, I believe there has to be a cause, I believe there is a reason, but that reason is way beyond our comprehension, it's unfathomable, which is why all scientific theories constructed on the "no cause" hypothesis are just as implausible as the creationist argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Allow me to clarify- I don't believe the universe could exist without having a cause, I believe there has to be a cause Then you are caught in an infinite regressive loop, or you must contradict yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I didn't say that, I said- scientists are unable to give a plausible explanation for why the universe exists without cause. Allow me to clarify- I don't believe the universe could exist without having a cause, I believe there has to be a cause, I believe there is a reason, but that reason is way beyond our comprehension, it's unfathomable, which is why all scientific theories constructed on the "no cause" hypothesis are just as implausible as the creationist argument. So again your opinion must be that the universe cannot exist, because if it needs a cause or reason it exist then the reason or cause must also need a reason or cause to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.