Yes facts from a christian website, not biased at all. you love that lou pasteur thing, but no one in the right mind supports that notion, nor has it been relevant for a long long time. Abiogenesis is not evolution, thus the pasteur argument, albeit retarded, misses the mark for other reasons.
I find it funny that you get your science from a christian website, really digging deep there buddy.
your posts are laughably stupid. The whole god is eternal argument is absurd, using temporal language to describe the absence of time as if it is an argument.
You are super stupid, super stupid.
No we don;t there are multiple theories, one being a multiverse that is eternal and infinite, you are talking out of your ass again. We have defined a singularity which doesn't exist in reality due to us not having the math to describe it, is this the beginning? no one knows.
Typically cosmologists use metaphysical positions such as string theory (which gave way to the multiverse theory) as a method to eliminate any singularity event...not create one. From what I've read the majority of cosmologists and physicists prefer the notion of the eternality of the universe in that has no beginning, singularity or causal event. It simply "is what it is" but is self-sustaining and theoretically regenerative or healing....yet without purpose. Even Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson seemingly concur that the universe is purposeless....a singularity event would substantiate a notion of purpose.
Krauss repeatedly states the following:
The universe is flat.
The universe has zero total energy.
The universe could’ve begun from nothing.
Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is "there had to be". If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you’ll always get something. It’s that simple, but it’s true.
Quantum fluctuations produced the flat universe out of nothing....virtual particles popping in and out of existence. How is this possible? No idea, but we've defined that their nature is to do so.
Within metaphysics the impossible is allowed......better, it's acceptable provided the caveat of "we just haven't discovered the reason yet" or "we don't have the math yet" is applied then all impossibilities are reasonably justified. It's perfectly acceptable to not have an answer, but that can't be the crutch on which the premise is grounded. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for changes in mass, energy, position, momentum and time that are basically impossible.
In the end, as long as the "singularity event" isn't God all else is justifiably fair game. Just too much accountability appended to that idea.....who needs that noise, right?! Let's concentrate on reasoning that one away, disguised in the noble yet generic endeavour of "the name of science". As long as we define terms and state that things within our metaphysical ideas have been "reasonably observed" all is good and acceptable.
