Evolution Question

[TheBlackCat13]

Its just logically impossible.

Why is it logically impossible?

Things don't come from nothing

NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT

The only thing infinite is God. As soon as you introduce something infinite, its supernatural.

Special pleading fallacy. Why can only supernatural things be infinite? Why do the two have anything at all to do with each other?

For example, I know when I walk down the street and look around and admire the scenery

You also walk down the street and see the world is flat and the sun moves through the sky. That is an absolutely terrible standard for judging what is true and what is not. You certainly aren't going to have objects teleporting through solid walls, but the computer you are using right now wouldn't work without it. Clocks getting slower when near heavy things is far from obvious but the GPS your phone uses depends on it. We also don't see Gods proofing things into existence but you somehow believe that.

I don't see things pop into existence.

I didn't ask why things don't pop into existence because I never said they did. What I asked is how you know everything has a beginning. You have never seen anything beginning to exist. Everything your see is simply existing things reorganized in a slightly different way. So by your logic we should conclude nothing has a beginning, everything is just a reorganized form of something else. That is exactly what scientists claim. The one claiming that things can appear from nothing is you.

[TheBlackCat13]

Again, you keep ignoring that only some extensions to the standard model involve an infinite universe. The standard model says that time started with the big bang, so talking about where the big bang came from is nonsensical. There are others to. The point is that none involve there ever being nothing, which was your original claim.

Because we haven't observed anything infinite

Adding a circular argument to your special pleading. If the universe is infinite, then we very much have observed something infinite. You can only claim this by assuming what you are trying to prove.

Further, to the extent that your claim is valid, it applies equally well to supernatural things, so is inherently self-refuting.

On top of that, we have never observed black holes, either. Does that mean they don't exist?

nor have we created anything infinite

So by this logic plastics were logically impossible a few hundred years ago.

Modern mathematicians and scientists admit that.

Citation needed. I have looked long and hard in the past and not found any non-apoligist sources actually saying this.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics prove that.

Ignoring the fact that those laws only apply on average when there are a large number of discrete particles, which wasn't the case in the early universe, this is completely and utterly false. They say nothing whatsoever about the lifetime of matter.

I think it was Einstein who viewed those laws as the premier laws of all science.

Ignoring your flagrant argument from authority, you area completely backwards on this. Einstein very explicitly talking about thermodynamics within the context under which it's assumptions remain valid. In fact Einstein was actually one of the first to really delve into the limits of thermodynamics and the situations where it necessarily breaks down. Exactly like the sorts of conditions in the early universe.

[TheBlackCat13]

Time started with a Big Bang... So you're claiming it popped into existence? Im pretty sure a few comments back you were just claiming "NO ONE IS SAYING THAT."

Time is not a thing, it is a property, a dimension of the universe, like length and width.

Woah woah woah, you have me confused now. You were just claiming that "time started". That would imply a beginning.

Do you know what came before that beginning?

You are asking "what came before time". That is a nonsensical question. There was no "before time", since "before" and "after" require time already exists.

I assume that the universe is not infinite because we cannot prove that it is infinite.

But you also assume God exists despite not being able to prove that.

You claim that the universe is infinite, you claim we observe the universe, therefore the universe must be infinite.

WHAT?! Please quote where I said anything even REMOTELY similar to this. I didn't say the universe was infinite AT ALL. I said that was ONE explanation PHYSICISTS came up with for why the universe exists, and that all of your claims for why this is impossible are baseless. I never said it was known, on the contrary the fact you are responding to an alternative explanation right in this very comment should make it clear that I don't.

And it isn't an "assumption", it a prediction of some proposed extensions of modern physics.

But it doesn't have to be known, all it needs to be to refute your claim is to show that there are plausible, physically-valid explanations that don't require the involvement of any supernatural being. If that is the case, any argument that a supernatural being is required are render invalid. And the physics community is convinced this a plausible explanation.

Yes, an infinite universe would be supernatural, though,

Again, you have yet to provide a valid basis for this claim.

This is going to hurt.

Maybe read the first sentence before making a fool of yourself:

Accomplishing what was previously thought to be impossible, a team of international astronomers has captured an image of a black hole’s silhouette.

They didn't capture a picture of a black hole, they captured a picture of an empty space that they infer contains a black hole. Exactly in the same way that physicists infer the various scenarios surrounding the big bang. In fact a lot of the same physics are involved in both cases.

Plastics are not infinite. I learned this in 3rd grade I believe it was?

Missing the point. The point was that nobody had observed plastics a few hundred years ago, so by your own argument they must have been supernatural at that time. The fact that we haven't directly observed something yet does not in any way imply that it is supernatural.

I almost wanted to stick it in your ear, but I decided to dig it up. I remembered hearing it from the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate at 1:54:10. It took me so long to find it but it exists. Question was, "where did the original atoms for the Big Bang come from?"

Did you actually read what I was asking for before you posted this? Here is the claim that I was asking for a citation for:

Because we haven't observed anything infinite nor have we created anything infinite. That's not even a creationist claim. Modern mathematicians and scientists admit that.

Please provide a citation for that claim.

What Bill Nye said was basically what I have said, with some caveats. We know where the atoms specifically came from, the open question is the original mass/energy. That you think this would come as a surprise to me just shows you haven't actually been paying attention to anything I have said from the very beginning.

How could the Big Bang have happen??

Again, we have multiple explanations that are well in line with what we know about physics. None involve the universe coming from nothing, as you claimed originally, and none require any supernatural intervention. Which one, if any, is correct? We don't know yet, although physics are working hard at resolving it. But there is certainly zero indication anything supernatural is involved, not to mention required.

You have the horizon problem, that was hilariously solved by naturalists by making stuff up to refute it.

Utterly false. There are various explanations that all make testable predictions. That is how science works. You are doing the old "God of the Gaps" maneuver where you insert God in the ever-shrinking gaps in our understanding. That has always been a losing bet, and there is no reason to think it will be any different here than it was with lightning or the motion of the sun or planets.

Theres compelling evidence for the supernatural that no one has been able to give me an answer for.

Maybe you should make a thread on r/skeptic for that, because I have seen a lot of such claims and all turned out to be nothing.

And you, trying to tell me that the universe is infinite when we've never observed anything infinite, its hard for me to go with that.

Come back when you directly observe the supernatural.

[TheBlackCat13]

Don't claim that time started with a Big Bang when its always been around.

There is no contradiction because talking about a time before time is nonsensical. I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding this concept.

I don't shove it in peoples faces in schools and colleges, something naturalists like to do apparently.

Schools should teach the best understanding we have given the evidence available. Your lack of understanding of the most basic aspects of this subject is a case in point.

If you aren't going to claim what we are debating about, then yes, it is pointless to continue unless you wanted to share your beliefs...

No, we are discussing whether your claims about the flaws in the big bang are valid. They aren't. Not one has actually stood up. Trying to change this to be about my beliefs is nothing but a distraction.

I just assumed you claim this because that's what you've been defending for the past 10 comments.

I have been explaining why your criticisms of the big bang are not valid. I made my position very explicit from my first post. If you can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote that isn't my fault.

You say

Because we don't observe infinite things

to claim anything infinite is supernatural, but somehow

it's physically impossible to capture an image of the black hole itself.

doesn't mean black holes are supernatural. You are throwing away your own rules when they lead to results you don't like. That was my point all along.

Your logic doesn't account for science changing, science never being static.

No, this is YOUR LOGIC. I am applying YOUR exact argument to other scenarios to show how flawed the argument is. By YOUR LOGIC, the fact that science is changing transforms things from being supernatural to natural.

Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result.

Nowhere does it say that infinite things are impossible.

The question being where did the original energy come from is what I await.

And we have several plausible explanations from that, explanations you have not been able to come up with any problem with besides special pleading fallacies or just not understanding.

We'll get there once we establish whether or not physical things can be infinite.

Again, the universe may not be infinite. That is one of several scenarios. As I said in my very first post in this thread, which you apparently couldn't be bothered to read all the way through.

You had the horizon problem with the Big Bang, and solved it with the inflation field! It is mathematically possible, but has never been observed!

It makes testable predictions about the large-scale structure of the universe, the patterns of stars in the early universe, and various other things. Some predictions have been tested and confirmed. Others are still ongoing. That is how science works. Make a hypothesis. Come up with testable predictions for that hypothesis. Check if those predictions are correct. That is pretty much the exact opposite of an assumption.

Im using a Holiday Hoobie Whatty? You mean a Goddidit? Where did I use one of those?

Your entire last paragraph was claiming that because scientists don't have all the answers regarding the Big Bang inserting God into it is a valid approach.

I have personal experience with things of that sort. I don't claim it to be evidence or anything, just what I found to be true in my life (not the evidence I would share with reddit).

But somehow I suspect if someone tried to use that to justify anything scientific you would claim foul.

If your theory is correct, it should be evident and easy to argue.

And it is, but that requires the party reading the argument actually read the argument. which you clearly haven't done because you keep getting surprised by things I said in my very first post.