368
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 303:
Line 303: + + +
→Eternal Universe?
:If the 1st and 2nd laws indicate that the ''natural'' universe had a beginning, then it must have been caused by something outside of the natural, i.e. by something ''super''-natural.
:If the 1st and 2nd laws indicate that the ''natural'' universe had a beginning, then it must have been caused by something outside of the natural, i.e. by something ''super''-natural.
:On the other hand, there is no way of knowing what caused the supposed Big Bang, which means ''that'' is pointless speculation, and therefore not science. Yet I don't see anti-creationists criticising the Big Bang for that reason! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:On the other hand, there is no way of knowing what caused the supposed Big Bang, which means ''that'' is pointless speculation, and therefore not science. Yet I don't see anti-creationists criticising the Big Bang for that reason! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
You think way too pre-relativity, time and space are connected and foldable: time is not absolute! Besides, if everything needs a cause in linear time, then why doesn't that supernatural being need an origin and cause as well?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]