Why do you Atheist guys make fun of religion then ducks a debate?

[Hype job]

Yes, since the Universe is universally regarded by all scientist in the world to began at 13,8 billion years ago, it meant that the universe is finite and at this point no amount of evidence point that the universe is otherwise

Care to refute that?

No, no it doesn't.

[Thraxox]

No, no it doesn't.

Umm yes it is. The universe has a beginning to which it had been measured accurately. Until you can prove that the universe didn't have a beginning and that the big bang never happened you have nothing to say otherwise.

Finite has a beginning, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe if finite.

[Hype job]

Umm yes it is. The universe has a beginning to which it had been measured accurately. Until you can prove that the universe didn't have a beginning and that the big bang never happened you have nothing to say otherwise.

Finite has a beginning, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe if finite.

We don't know if the universe had a beginning either. Big bang is just a theory.

And even if it did, that's not proof that it's infinite.

[Thraxox]

We don't know if the universe had a beginning either. Big bang is just a theory.

And even if it did, that's not proof that it's infinite.

Isn't that what you mock Christians for saying "Evolution" is just a theory? The double standards is laughable.

[Lomasexual]

Finite has a beginning, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe if finite.

Not at all.

A simple example: consider all of the positive integers. There are an infinite number of them, but they start at zero. Has a beginning yet is infinite.

The maths involved in astrophysics are a lot more complicated. But just because it doesn't seem intuitive doesn't make it incorrect.

[Thraxox]

Not at all.

A simple example: consider all of the positive integers. There are an infinite number of them, but they start at zero. Has a beginning yet is infinite.

The maths involved in astrophysics are a lot more complicated. But just because it doesn't seem intuitive doesn't make it incorrect.

Eternal =/= Infinity.
Eternal = has no beginning or end
Infinity = Has a beginning but has no end.

I wasn't arguing for non existence Infinite expanding universe, I was arguing for the non feasibility that currently science has on an eternal universe that it has no beginning which no scientific study has been accepted as a substitute for the big bang.

I thought I made that clear.

[Lomasexual]

Eternal =/= Infinity.
Eternal = has no beginning or end
Infinity = Has a beginning but has no end.

I wasn't arguing for non existence Infinite expanding universe, I was arguing for the non feasibility that currently science has on an eternal universe that it has no beginning which no scientific study has been accepted as a substitute for the big bang.

I thought I made that clear.

I think the use of the word 'finite' threw me off there.

So you are talking about whether the universe has always existed?

There is a fair deal of scientific thought which states that the universe began 13.4 billion years or so ago. There is debate about whether there is a 'bouncing/collapsing' model, which could mean an eternally old universe. I think there are some others as well. Of course, there is also the multiverse type theories.

However, I think that if we just look back to the big bang itself, then there are more interesting questions. As the birth of space/time, what does it actually mean to be eternal?

If time, as the temporal dimension, is compressed into a singularity, then you have all of eternity right there.

If there was never a time when the universe did not exist, then is it eternal? Or does it have to have existed for an infinite time to be eternal? If so, was there infinite time at the point of the big bang? Some models have time spinning out of a fourth spatial dimension. What limits does that place on it?

Lots of interesting questions. I don't think it has been settled yet whether the universe is eternal or not. Too many unknowns.

[Zaroku]

Your asking to prove a negative which is hard to do.
The burden of proof is on you to prove God exist not on others to prove he doesn't exist.

I know exactly what I'm asking. No burden on me, since I'm merely taking butler to task.

[GGG Gloveking]

This isn't true. No one credible scientist claims existence came to be from nothing. Scientist don't know.
There are working hypothesis on what caused the big bang, but nothing concrete enough to publish as a scientific theory.

Wait, but these other atheists have been yelling Science, Science, trying to disprove God. Now you're telling me they don't know?

[JJRod]

LOL Geocentricism is not even in the Genesis, it is in the Psalms and Isiah, you avoided the topic on the question "Did the Church taught that the earth was young?" And I debunked that by citing St. Augustine of Hippo of the Catholic church that they did not.

Geocentricism-Heliocentricism debate did not even start till the early 1600's in which people back then had no reliable technology to validate such works, and one of the Geocentrists are one of the greatest minds on earth in Aristotle and people thought that his works are indeed correct, and it is easily to understand why they stuck with Aristotolean Geocentricism till Copernicus and Gallileo came. And Aristotle wasn't even a Christian!

So first: The greatest mind at that time proclaimed Geocentricism as true: With no technology to validate his claim, people accepted it and defended it, and the church back his research.

And once again, how did you know the people believed in Genesis as the literal word when the only thing that the church actually taught that is related to the universe is Geocentricism that originated from Aristotle? which it is not even addressing the age of the earth/
And why are you contradicting one of the church's greatest theologians in St. Augustine?

Try again son.

We know that people believed in and took the book of genesis and the entire bible literally because of history.
Again why was Copernicus banned from the church? Why was Galileo? Why was Darwin's theory of natural selection so controversial? Why did the church burn people for herasy?
Because they went against the teaching of the church!!


Please quit going to answers in genesis.com and Christian answers.com to quote me your endless dribble. Youre lifting arguments from them and passing them off as your own in feeble attempt to appear intelligent.