Quote from Cutten:
It does not "demonstrate" it at all. Cosmology merely *postulates* certain possibilities, given the extremely limited evidence we have about the origins of the universe. For all we know, all our evidence could be fallacious, or it could *look* as though the universe had a start point, but that in fact there was a universe before this point, but that no evidence remains of its existence. Cosmology has made no scientific (i.e. unambiguous and falsifiable) proofs whatsoever about whether the universe was created, or was always there. Also, the second law of thermodynamics does not demonstrate anything at all about what happened at the alleged origin of the universe - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a *theory* (like all science, it is merely a postulation that has yet to be falsified), not a binding law of reality, and one which has been based on merely the tiny proportion of time in the universe's history in which humans have been alive and/or able to accumulate data from. When dealing with a universe with an estimated age in the multiple billions at least, we have simply no idea whether the laws of physics applied in its early period in the same way that they do now, nor that they will continue to hold tens of billions of years in the future. This is all mere conjecture, with *no* scientific evidence to support it.
I was almost with you until the end. mathematics is constant. The laws of Physics do not change. Matter has not changed.
How do you arrive at that theory. I see no evidence to the contrary.
How do we "know" this? We simply have no idea that the alleged origin of the universe has a cause. What's more, we don't even know if *any* events have a true cause, because observation of extremely high correlation does not imply causality at all, as Hume demonstrated a long time ago. Not only do you lack any evidence that there was a "cause" of the universe, even if you had it, it would be logically impossible to differentiate the causality from mere correlation. One could not even imply "weak" causality (i.e. very high correlation), because there is only one data point. To imply high correlation one needs many data points.
C'mon man. You can't get something from nothing. Matter had to be created dude. You are using the wrong argument and using the wrong tool. even "data points" have a beginning.
Even if one accepts there was a cause of the universe's existence, and that the universe was created at one specific point rather than existing forever (neither of which claim has been supported by evidence, let alone proven), what evidence is there that it was God that created it?
intelligent DESIGN.
That is simply one hypothesis amongst countless possibilities. For all we know, the universe may have been created by Zeus farting, or it may have come into being by a cause of which we know absolutely nothing.
tongue and cheek. Even if Zeus did fart the universe into existence it still emminated through "God", Zeus, Allah, or some other name.
Where is your evidence that life could not exist in a non-designed universe?
Ever tried to breath on Mars? How about Jupiter?
If I use a random word generator long enough, at some point it will create the complete works of Shakespeare.
Gotcha! evolutionary theory my man. 'What you have just suggested is impossible! I have already squashed that idea.
This is not evidence for design, any more than that the existence of intelligent life on earth is evidence for design. Both are accountable for by unthinking processes completely lacking in any intelligent thought or design.
What? were do you get that?
In fact it is very easy. Groups of humans which practice morality are more likely to co-operate in unison, and therefore prove stronger as a whole compared to groups of random individuals who do not cooperate at all. Altruism and other ethical traits present in humans strongly assist mutual cooperation and progress. Thus morality is easily explicable by basic natural selection. Even if this were not the case, morality could simply be a randomly arising trait of humans - just because it is allegedly "difficult to account for", does not suggest in any way that the existence of God must be postulated. Lack of knowledge about something's origins is not in any way proof of *any* theory about those origins.
