It's so obvious this fella is avoiding the point by all means and purposes,
just look at him, not even a single reply to any of my points.
Oh high and mighty lolwhatever,
I don't claim to be mighty. That's an attribute of Allah not me.
You keep spinning in circles and it isn't getting you anwywhere. Don't you get dizzy?
actually might wanna ask urself that. Don't know whats so hard to understand about the examples of i gave, you still havn't proved any of your (very weird and unfounded) claims about infinity.
First you DO NOT KNOW that the universe hasn't always existed in some form or another.
That's where a. islam fills in the gaps for us, b. science indicates that it came from nothing.
If you want to contradict the theories out there, you need to provide some evidence, this thread is asking us to use scientific evidence. Besides the lie you've conjured up about infinity, you've decided to leave the matter up in the air and not give it the slightest thought.
You're not even willing to consider the (high) possibility that the universe came about from nothing with total unpredictability.
Second, you DO NOT KNOW the conditions or physical forces surrounding the formation of the unverse (if it was formed), what was possible, or what exactly had to happen. You do not know. Scientists do not know either. At best, they have guesses extrapolated from the world as it ended up being.
Again, irrelevent, we're using whatever science has to tell us that's not in contradiction with the quran to prove that there is an indication to a greater supernatural being that caused this universe to exist.
The fact you couldn't comprehend spacetime independence and laws of conservation puts in very serious question your credibility when it comes to discussing matters to do with basic science let alone your imaginations about what could have been the case before singularity.
Yet you claim to know that laws of physics (which you have yet to detail) prevent the universe from coming to be. ANd from that you fall to god of the gaps logic. You claim to know something you do not and then you use that claim to enter a fallacy of logic. Just because we do not know or can not explain something does not mean God-Did-It.
The laws of physics tell us that you can't create being from non being (not:?), as simple as that! The law of conservation tells us clearly it's impossibel to create matter out of nothing, Q-C tells us that's exactly how our universe was formed. out of nothing.
Tell me now that's not a law of physics? The rest of the argument then just falls apart.
multiple universes and aliens are not solid scientific facts.
Nobody said that they were, and tey do not have to be. THey are mere possibilities. Nobody here is advocating them as the for sure way that the universe came to be. THey are just saying it could be, not that it is. And your proof of God in thise case appears to be disproving that any of them could be.
In that case you have totally missed the point of this thread which is asking us to discuss using science not metaphysical speculation. Science indicates that this universe came into being from nothing, literally nothing.
And that just backs up our belief in Allah, since he fulfills all the requirements to create such a universe. And our definition of Allah wasn't something we came up with after Q-C trold us about the instanton. It was since Adam's time. The fact that the quran points our attention to many thigns that where only recently discovered further makes our claims more believable. Athiests prefer to switch of their minds and think 'could hav been anything', that's fine, keep in midn that's xaclty why Allah punishes those sorts of people, for doing away with the intelligence that Allah blessed them with.
And as i said it's more than just science, it's science coupled with simple rationalism combined with seeing what the creator himself has to tell us (or for those who don't think he was the creator, to tell us where the prophet could have got his revelations from if they're so sincere).
You are attempting to disprove something you can't disprove and even if you could do it, you'd still not have proved what you seek to prove.
Again, that's just one posibility. Maybe there was something. The best physicists can do is theorize from what they now observe.
And from a purely scientific point of view, a person with the slightest intelligence wouldn't be sitting on the argument that this came about via zero intelligent design.
As to your parrarel line example, you've set that up in such a way that them crossing is an actual impossibility, absent some star-trekkish warp in timespace or something.
Oh finally! an example that drives the point through.
So dear pygo, you said given infinite time anything and everything could happen, so you're admitting that doesn't hold in this case :?
And what makes you think it's possible for marbles to fall in that specific pattern that trumble gave:?, and what makes you think it's possible that a coin landing on a plane surface can land and settle on an angle of 30 degrees to the horizontal?
So i hope this discards once n for all that infinitely physics-defiant results can occur given infinite time (crazier still your claim that it's a probability of one when you sum the series! rofl

).
The hurricane in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.
lol you admitted it was impossible in the above example, what makes you think it's not impossible in this case? To prove its possiblity i gave you a tool that you could use against me, it's real easy to disprove me... just set it up as an inverse kinematics problem and show me that it's even possible for a tornado to setup a car out of a steel dumpster. Let alone the fact that it defies 2nd law of thermo which states that entropy
increases with time, not decreaes (lol you're saying that given infinite time a car can be formed, meaning the entropy would have decreased over time!)
In the universe's case, as I stated above, you don't know what the conditions would have to be to produce life as it now is so you can't say if it fits with the lines or with the hurricane.
This talk of the universe coming to be by method A or method B is still a thought exercise assuming the universe or something prior to it didn't already exist, which isn't for sure.
Why not then submit an analytical model that questions the validity of quantum cosmology? As far as i know, scientific community saw it as a great step towards understanding more about the universe. I'm not for a moment suggesting Q-C equates to a law, all i am saying, is that it provides a very strong basis for people who believe in Allah to assert their claim.
Afterall, what takes greater faith,
to believe it created itself from nothing by nothing or that a Creator was involved?
You seem to blind fold your eyes from all what science has to offer and decide you prefer to live and die without excercising any intelligence or contemplation.
And so you are STILL left with the problem of "who created God" and the premise breaking answer that he doesn't need a creator.
Erm in all your posts you've ignored my answers to that very question, i wonder if you'll ever realise that.
I'll try again...
God is something that's beyond our imagination, for something limited to attempt to comprehend something unlimited is impossible. It's not to do with immunity, it's simple definition, The Creator is by definition something that can create being from non being (our universe for example), to suggest that 'The Creator' was created is itself a contradictory statement. On top of that, God is time independent, so to ask how he began isn't a valid question to start with. Especially from the indications quantum cosmology gives us that spacetime originated with the big bang.
You're not getting anywhere. I'm sorry you can't see that
Someone who turns off their minds and prefers to think 'anything could be the answer' is obvioulsy the one who isn't and won't get anywhere.
This thread is asking us to engage in intellectual debate, sticking to unfounded hypothesis is not part of that. The question that begs to be answered is 'what are you doing in this thread?' trying to get people to turn off their minds liek the way you have?