Explanation of the Universe requires non conventional thinking.
 

Even Matt Dillahunty (Atheist extraordinaire) has been quoted as saying that the Existence of the Universe (or more broadly "Physical Existence") demands an Explanation!

The Explanation is an illusive one.

It seems that either:

1) Physical Existence is eternal and has always been dynamic, or "in motion" (this requires an infinite regress - Theistic Position, vast capacity for progressive evolution suggest Existence of a Higher Power. Naturalistic Position; cannot rule out the possibiity, but no compelling empirical evidence yet for existence of a Higher Power)

2) Physical Existence is eternal, and was at first frozen and then became dynamic (this requires an "atemporal" first cause - Theistic position, suggests God as a "prime mover". Naturalistic Position - none)

3) Physical Existence is finite and came into being from a non-physical cause (Theistic position, suggests existence of a non physical "spirit" world. Naturalistic Position - none).

4) Physical Existence is finite and came into being without a cause. (Theistic Position, none. Naturalistic position, *none).

Note: Physical "Laws" are considered part of Physical Existence.

* See book by Lawrence Krause entitled A universe from nothing. "Nothing" as described by Krause actually comprises a quantum vacuum which contains energy, hence is not really "nothing".

No matter how you slice it, the "Explanation" for Physical Existence is pretty damn mysterious, as the human mind cannot fathom an; infinite regress, an atemporal first cause, a non-physical cause, nor coming into being without any kind of cause at all.

From the above it can be asserted that the "Explanation" does not follow conventional norms of how the world typically operates.

Atheists always seem to claim that Theism does not follow conventional norms, and Theism does offer explanations for some of the seemingly impossible possibilities.... hmmmmmm ...

Just saying... Room for Faith??

The scientific world will probably stick with the rational definition -

vac·u·um
ˈvakˌyo͞o(ə)m/
noun
noun: vacuum; plural noun: vacua; plural noun: vacuums

1. 1.
   a space entirely devoid of matter.
   synonyms:emptiness, void, nothingness, vacancy, absence, black hole "people longing to fill the spiritual vacuum in their lives"
   
   
   
   
   
   • 
     
     
     
     
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   
   
   
   
   
   

rather than your bullshit.

BTW, how's that sperm donating going? are you still delivering via Star Trek Transporter beam?

:bird:

:lol:

Indeed. It seems many things elude you.

Evidence? :lol:

Speaking of Matt Dillahunty quotes -

:thumbsup::lol:

Are you a graduate of Trump U? :rock:

Sinny your rambling like an idiot.

Don't you find it interesting that it seems that all explanations of how the Cosmos exist appear to be beyond human comprehension?

The power of God surpasses all understanding.

Get it?

And yes, belief in God is primarily based in faith. Do you have a problem with that?

I think I'm losing the will to shit. :rolleyes:

https://scontent.fybz1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...71&oe=5AAA84EF

:cool:

Quote:

Scientists find a link between low intelligence and acceptance of 'pseudo-profound bulls***'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a6757731.html

No longer any need for it! Just let this software generate impressive sounding replies to Andyboy and MaryJJ, save yourself wasted time and energy and still have hours of fun!

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Faith is a useless thing in itself, but it is also a thing that can be taken advantage of. If you want to avoid being taken advantage of, then don't rely on faith. You won't be missing out on anything.

Faith = wishful thinking

Very scientific Andy.

Hi Everyone

What shitty Atheists you are, not one of you has proclaimed my statements represent a God of the Gaps Argument.

Maybe I wrote it to sciency so it bored you all and you didn't even read it? Clearly from your comments none of you are critical thinkers or scientists!!!!!:rolleyes:

One things I'll say, just because in the past scientists have suggested that a God must exist in explanation of a difficult observation or problem (in this case the Explanation of the Universe) and were later proven wrong, that doesn't mean that future Gap or Gaps yet unsolved must follow the same result.

As long as their are Gaps in science where God can reside, there can and will be faith.

By the way, for those of you who read the first post, another possibility I suppose is the Physical Existence doesn't really exist!!

Maybe all there is an un-embodied consciousness world (aka spirit world) and we are living in a dream like state. I suppose this would support Theism more so than naturalism. Gee, most of the possibilities support Theism over Naturalism! :thumbsup:

False dichotomy. You forgot the option that everybody here thinks you're a cunt and couldn't be bothered with your continued spewing of retarded wank.
Also, you may have noticed nobody paid attention to your earlier fallacious Argumentum ad Populum, and endless Arguments from Incredulity.
Come up with something original & worthwhile and you may get serious responses - till then, fuck off.

HaHa I gave a lot more than two options, and you think its a "dichotomy". What a fucking retard you are!!

Argumentum ad populum - eeeewwww latin, your so smart:rolleyes:

R u talking about the Evidence for Jesus's resurrection argument, because the historic pieces leading to the conclusion are is based on acceptence from a majority of Historical Scholarship?

You are so fucking stoopid its hard to believe.

In science (have you heard of that?) - where the science leads to policy statements which become adopted, scientists get together and make what are called consensus statements. There will always be a stoopid outliers who object, so it is majority rule. The public who adopts and benefits from scientific consensus statements (often in medicine) don't cry "argumenum ad populum" and go with the outlier's views - often in fact it becomes illegal to do so.

Go wank yourself off, that is all your good for - your mind and comments are shit.:lol::lol::lol:

Oh Andy boy, I love it when you talk dirty! :lol:
*Sigh* I thought someone in your 'field' would do better, but no, I'm finally going to have to settle on 'trolling fuckwit'.
Since you joined us - apart from the god-awful spelling, grammar and over-active imagination - you really are clueless.
No, but now you remind me, it is a good argument from deluded bullshit.
Thank you for reminding me of the bleeding obvious - but no, this wasn't amongst the shitloads of fallacies you've made since your recent return.
Keep searching, see if you can find them.
If I have a choice between reading your un-ending cosmic shite and a good wank, a flex of the wrist wins every time! :rock:

http://www.blablameter.com/

:bird:

I'm not sure if that's working properly Sin, I put a few of Andy's texts into it and it kept coming back playing Deliverance music.

I put the posts flagship prose into the BS meter, it says

Your text: 1983 characters, 318 words

Bullshit Index :0.16

Your text shows only a few indications of 'bullshit'-English.

This is pretty good, no?

Well their ya go - the Peer Review Process does work! :lol: