Search results

Re: ___this Whole Thread Comes Down To This___ This entire idea is rooted in time. I do not believe you can have causal events without some sort of thing which I would dub time, therefore you cannot have a causal event for the beginning of time, which is what essentially the big bang...

I strongly doubt you'll ever produce real medical evidence of this, nor do I believe what you have seen (cripples being healed) is real either... Have you ever gone over and questioned them critically?

Do you think there would be the evidence i.e. Medical records? If so you truly may be able to win $1,000,000. People say all sorts of shit, so I'm not interested (sorry if that seems rude but it is simply just true...).

So do you have any evidence that she: a) Had an INCURABLE disease, i.e. credible medical records and b) Credible medical evidence that it has been cured. If so, you win $100,000, she gets $900,000. *Obviously I can't say for certain as I don't represent the organisation that pays out this...

So is it cured or treated? If something treatable appears to be treated... I really don't see what's so special.

Is it something which is curable in a way other than via divine miracle?

how fucking awesome is the trailer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4blSrZvPhU

I'm sorry but you're dismissing something rather arrogantly which you honestly imo haven't even begun to show a propensity to engage in a proper dialogue with. You truthfully have no idea, even less than those of us that have read some popular science texts and googled.

tbqh I don't have any favoured view of how we have something instead of nothing or how the universe came into being or if it's even meaningful to say it came into being, of prime importance in this discussion (for me at least) is merely to show that all of the god hypotheses are highly...

Idk for the most part I'd look to use the other persons notions... and I truly don't see how someone could claim something could not be necessary if it happened and there was nothing before it.

I don't see how something can be dependent on something else if there is no existence in which that other thing can exist, I also note the use of "anything contingent" and would question that the existence of existence would be called something contingent... there's nothing for it to rely upon.

Cause requires time. Also "cause and effect" only comes up anywhere to do with momentum afaik. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/index.html What causes the ball to roll in a certain direction, if indeed it does? Also, your requirement for everything to have a cause in order to be...

I don't think this problem really effects my argument. I said that time=0 is in a sense "eternal" merely to hint at both states commonality of being outside of the notion of something "before". Well one premise of my argument would be that it's illogical to posit cause without time, i.e. Cause...

Note that I asked whether you were saying X, your statement was quite ambiguous to me so I didn't understand it and merely made my best attempt. And I entirely disagreed by applying the sort of laws I believe you were aluding to (basically I think your argument rested on the premise that...

I just want to make sure, in my explanation... do you see that there's no need for there to have been 'nothing' ? The universe at t=0 is in a sense "eternal". But I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the universe and all its parts existed at some form at t=0, there is no "before" this...

I'm not claiming there was ever "nothing". As I said in my last post... I am more than willing to accept such things (in fact there's been work done for a while now that suggests there was 'time' before our time), the point of my argument is more just to show that the theists assumption (that...

All three of my prepositions lead to the conclusion that you do not need a cause for things which existed at time=0. To say 'but I do not accept that they need a catalyst/cause' is to blatantly ignore what you just said you accept. P1: Time/Our Universe has a finite past, at one point T=0. P2...

Do you accept that our universe/time has a finite past? Do you accept that at one point time equaled 0? Do you accept that without time you cannot have cause? How can you then not accept that time cannot have a cause? Time at one point was 0, nothing had happened before it, in this state...

Are you going to actually present an argument against what I said or is that little irrelevant spiel all you have to say on the matter?

I seriously think you're missing my point... Asking for the cause of time, asking 'why' the big bang occurred (the big bang marking the beginning of time) is a meaningless question like "What's north of the north pole?" You cannot have cause (thus time, cause requires time) before time, you...