Look people, as I said over and over again, the models that you people keep coming at me with have major flaws in them, and I already quoted Hawking saying that the BBM remains the best explanation for the cause of the universe. Grogan, you failed. It was a nice try, because I can tell with the words that you typed you thought you were really doing something. But you wasn't. You can't beat me dude. So stop trying. Since i just sucessfully proved yet another member of this forum wrong, i will now take Grogans advice, i will go back to my rap forums and continue making physical threats....see you guys later...
There appears to be a serious misunderstanding here. As I understand it, no-one has seriously disputed that the Big Bang model is the best explanation for the development
of the cosmos. However, the Big Bang model has nothing whatsoever to say
with respect to the cause
of the cosmos - your assertions to the contrary.
You can, of course, refute this by showing
where LCDM cosmology makes such a claim, or where it says that there was "nothing before the Big Bang". Merely calling people ignorant and asserting that it's a long time since they opened a Physics textbook does not cut it. Repeating your original assertion ad nauseam
(whether in all-caps or not) does not cut it. TITS or GTFO.
On your earlier reply to myself, to which I was unable to respond in the thread in question:
Sweetheart, assertion by all-caps doesn't add any weight to an argument. If anything, it shows that you're losing the plot.
Notice the focus isn't on the argument, but on the CAPS. It looks like this broke down spartan aint prepared for a war after all lol.
There wasn't anything new in your latest response - it was just a rehash of what you'd already said. All you've said is that just because IMPs have been established not
to be responsible for natural phenomena every single time in the past, we cannot thereby conclude
that they are not responsible for natural phenomena for which an explanation remains elusive.
That is not in dispute; but kcrady made it quite plain that he wasn't making a deductive conclusion, but an inductive inference - and further, the inference was not
that IMPs don't exist, but that it's a "bad bet" that IMPs hold explanatory power, and as such, favouring an IMP explanation over a naturalistic one in the absence of any other data does not make sense.
Its funny, because when you look up fallacy of composition, you will find out that fallacy of "hasty generalization" often get confused with "fallacy of composition". And i can see why, because YOU are giving an example of the two being confused with one another.
I'll take that as a concession that you did indeed get the two fallacies confused.
Fallacy of composition: The Earth contains iron. Therefore, the Earth is a metal.
Hasty generalization: All swans in the Northern Hemisphere are white. Therefore, all swans are white.
Even if IMPs have "poor track records" (even tho i don't believe that they do), that STILL doesn't mean that IMPs dont exist lol. They could still exist despite a poor track record. So once again, you fail with the argument, and you can cling on to it until the day that you die, but you will still be wrong. So keep your false hope alive.
Again you miss the point. It is not kcrady's job
to prove that IMPs don't exist. He did not set out to do this. I do not do so. So your assertion that he, or I, "fail with the argument" is simply proof of your own lack of understanding, because that is not the argument being made
Really? Give me a post that has every single religion that has made testable claims and prove that that particular religion has been proven wrong. You made the statement. So show me. If you can't, then you are a liar.
I didn't say "proven wrong", so you're putting words into my mouth. I said "come up short". You can begin and end with all their cosmologies, and their estimates of the age of the Earth and the cosmos.
Earlier you said: "As far as the rainbow crap is concerned. We know how rainbows occur on a natural level, but does that mean that Yahweh didn't cause the rainbow as recorded in Genesis by a supernatural occurence? NOOOO, it does not logically follow."
You missed the point. I said "the reason
for rainbows", which - if you'll recall - was because Yahweh had supposedly flooded the entire planet, and promised not to do it again - if you count the reckoning according to the Bible, some time in around 2,400BCE. Sadly, this is a testable claim that has come up short, as geologists can find no evidence whatsoever of a global flood in 2,400BCE, and that kind of thing would leave its mark - further, we know of civilizations that existed before, during and after this supposed inundation period that not only fail to make any record of it, but who apparently remained utterly unaffected by it. As far as science is concerned, such a global flood simply did not happen when the Bible claims it did. Moreover, there are good scientific reasons for concluding not only that it did not happen, but that a global flood could
not have happened. As such, the Biblical notion of the reason for rainbows fails as a good explanation for rainbows, and is - from that point of view - no better than Bifrost or any other supernaturalistic explanation for them
(some of which may even predate the Biblical one).
And are you seriously
suggesting that the refraction of light is a phenomenon that simply did not exist before the (now widely discredited) postulated event of a global flood in around 2400BCE? The fact is, in this as in other cases, we do not need
to appeal to an IMP in order to explain the refraction of light. It's a well understood natural phenomenon. And refraction of light doesn't stop at rainbows - you can after all achieve the same result with a prism, or a glass of water for that matter.
Regardless of whether the words are in CAPS, or lower case, each word that i type are hittin you people like a large grenade. How about you debate me on the issues Deus?? If you wont accept the challenge to the debate, then simply keep your comments to yourself.
I am trying
to discuss the issues, my dear, but you keep ignoring them. How about you actually address the point I made? Why do you ignore the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and further, insist
that Big Bang cosmology (a) is incompatible with any multiverse hypothesis and (b) contained within it the premise that 1LoT is violated at t