[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Arryn:
The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

quote:

---

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old.

---

It is a very extravagant claim to say that the laws of physics do not apply past a certain point. Do you have any proof of this? Any reliable, citeable observations of a case where physicis were suspended?

Originally posted by Arryn:
(And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)

Where did I say the universe had infinite energy?

Originally posted by Arryn:

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED

Apparently you didn't read the logic closely - I did not jump to the conclusion that God exists; I went to "...one of the following must be true..." and you seem to have assumed a conclusion of a specific one of those four / all of those four. This one of your counter-arguments falls apart on the basis that you are not arguing against my specific arguments. Shucks, I'd even mentioned in the section you quote (i've just now added italics to that specific piece of where I quoted you quoting me - it wasn't italicized in the original) that only one of the four need be true, with no reference as to which one.

Seeing as how you clearly aren't reading my Posts very carefully, there isn't much point in further discussion, is there?

Edit: fixed a grammer mistake

[ July 29, 2004, 16:04: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]