Replies

You're saying that my argument fell because of something you assume... Are you aware of what happens when you assume that matter can be created during inflation.

B: I don't know about matter being created during the inflationary epoch, although quarks may have been springing into existence at this point.

I'll let you know this much you're making a "this" out of you and me.

B: From where I stand, its just you.

"Where does the force come from? "

B; What force? The false vacuum? Many, if not most cosmologists think that our universe is but a "brane" within in a higher dimesnional manifold.

Google "M-brane theory"

This is a simple enough answer. The only place a force could from is a force that exists outside the scope of the universe. That force is the god, or in my personal belief "God," that I have been writing of.

B: I see, "I assert, therefore I'm right". Now try and write something that can at least pretend to be a logical argument. I suppose if one wants, they can view God as a collision between "branes". Not strictly orthodox, mind you.

Seriously PP I appreciate your input, but I think you're assuming way to much in your arguments. I assume Laws that are canonically accepted,

B: Like what?

and you begin assuming theories that have yet to be witnessed in action.

B: Ah yes, the old creationist chestnut "seeing is beleiving". One wonders what creationists said about atomic forces before the A-bomb? One doesn't have to witness events. They can be inferred by what remains in the aftermath.

And by the way spontaneous generation of matter from the vacuum is a measureable phenomena. Google "Casimir effect" or "Lamb shift"

I am certain that if at some juncture we find matter being created, that is definitely a possible reason behind it, but as of now we have yet to witness the creation of matter.

B: THe creation of matter can be witnessed by anyone interested in experimental phsysics. Like most creationists, you're at least a few decades behind the times.

Therefore you cannot assume that, as the creation of matter has not even been witnessed once,

B: Its been "witnessed" in every major physics institute since the invention of the cloud chamber. Google "particle pair production", and "witness" the spontaneous creation of an electron-positron pair from a gamma ray.

You are ig-no-rant. It remains to be seen as to whether or not you are inculcatable.

"B; What force? The false vacuum? Many, if not most cosmologists think that our universe is but a "brane" within in a higher dimesnional manifold."

A force is the compulsion to cause a reaction. In order for their to be a reaction, there must first be an action, or a "force" applied. Saying that most cosmologists accept it as truth is a fallacy. It is an appeal to prestige. Just because most scientists say the world must be flat does not make it so. By the same note, you could argue that just because most scientists say that for every action there must be a reaction does not make it so. So you don't have to agree to it, but this is something I can actually witness.

"B: I see, "I assert, therefore I'm right". Now try and write something that can at least pretend to be a logical argument. I suppose if one wants, they can view God as a collision between "branes". Not strictly orthodox, mind you."

No, this is not a "I assert therefore I'm right" argument, it is an argument based upon the process of elimination, because the Universe could not have existed forever, and because the universe could not have been created without some reaction beforehand, a reaction must have taken place to result in the universe. The only logical possible identity of that force is a deity of some sort. Had you bothered to read post #126, you would know that the argument is based in part on the process of elimination.

And of course, your "write something logical" statement, is an attempt to demean my right to debate the subject... I have one word for you : DENIED

" Like what?"

Newton's Laws of motion. The Law of conservation of mass/energy. et cetera. Not some argument that just "asserts" (i knew you liked that word, so i used it) that matter can be created.

"Ah yes, the old creationist chestnut "seeing is beleiving". "

Hardly, "seeing is believing" is an age old platform of the atheist and the agnostic. You're just upset that a creationist has turned your pet logic against you.

" One wonders what creationists said about atomic forces before the A-bomb?"

This is entirely non-sequiter to the subject.

"One doesn't have to witness events."

So from your obvious mastery of logic we can assume that God can exist. Not only can we assume that God exists, we can also assume that Unicorns, and the Bogey Man all exist.

Your intelligence is stunning.

"You are ig-no-rant. It remains to be seen as to whether or not you are inculcatable. "

Golly, that's rightly neighborly of you. The Intelligence of this argument staggers me. I have no response. This is just way to deep. You're far to smart for me.... [/sarcasm]