OK. I still don't know what your argument was for God creating the universe.

Hawking believes the big bang originated from a point of hyper dense matter the size of a pea which then exploded.

Its not like the flow chart of the universe went:

empty space, empty space, every matter in existence

Not to mention this doesnt even make it a "god did it" conclusion. Thousands of years ago we knew the sun was pulled by a god driving a chariot of steeds. We absolutely knew it for a fact. We also knew for a fact that the sun, moon and all the other astrological bodies revolved around the Earth which was stationary in space. Then we learnt new stuff and there no longer is a sun god and there no longer are models of the solar system with the Earth in the centre.

It is literally to argue that whenever human knowledge has gaps that is the work of god. Then we fill in those gaps and suddenly that work of god is just a metaphor and it was never literal, but that gap of knowledge over there, yeah that is the work of god.

Technically non of us have ever seen anything come into existence. Its all just matter reforming.

I mean if you say so but im not so sure.

I think he considers the existence of humans a necessary component of a universe that is fine-tuned.

But how does he know a universe that is not fine-tuned cant have humans? I need some kind of proof to know and i dont have that. This universe may be fine-tuned, maybe its just a little bit tuned or semi tuned or not tuned at all.

And even if i give that it is fine tuned. How do i know it had a tuner and that the tuning didn't come out of some kind of infinite randomness of universe creations.

Ya rly lol. I like how he leaves the "but I would not want to place a large bet on it" off his bold list, even though it's part of the same sentence he put in bold!

Jib, my comment still stand. You take what Guth says and completely misrepresent it to mean that science currently leads towards such and such a view. It's dishonest and pathetic. And yeah, I looked at those threads and what I said happened is exactly what happened. You made a thread here with a bunch of questions based on your (mis) understanding of what was being said. You disliked the responses so much, that you made a second thread in SMP to try and get backing for what you thought was being said. That thread was even shorter and lead to a dead end within a day.

The words being used throughout that quote you posted itt make it perfectly clear that it's up in the air as far as "science" is concerned. Guth has an opinion on the matter, but he makes it crystal clear that he's not very sure himself at this point. So far you've posted one guy's opinion based off what he admits is incomplete information to back up your claim that science leans towards there being an ultimate beginning.

Why do you approach this stuff in such a silly way? Because you're assuming your conclusion and you only let stuff through your filter that supports it. Maybe one day you'll realize this. Until then, I expect you to either ignore this post or lash out at me telling me I'm missing the point, blah blah.

Nope, still a tie. I don't know what a fine tuned universe looks like, and I don't know what a universe that isn't fine tuned looks like. And neither do you.

Of course I emphasized that. I quoted the entire thing though, it's not like I left anything out. Your are being extremely dishonest in your assessment.

Why don't you quote something that blows away my statements? Your inability to comprehend even the easiest of things is not my problem. Nothing in either of those threads contradicts my characterization of Guths words.

Please, lay out exactly what you believe I misunderstood about what Guth said.

I disagree, it makes it sound like it is not settled, but that there is good reason (he lists two good reasons) why it is more probable than not that the universe had an ultimate beginning.

Believe whatever you want, I don't really care. I have proven that I am willing to change my positions on issues, you on the other hand have not. So either you are perfect in all of your conclusions, or your are dogmatic.

Why put anything in bold in such a short quote?

Why don't I just bang my head against the wall next to me? Because it's a waste of time and makes my head hurt.

EDIT: As I say below, I used a poor choice of words. It's not that you're misrepresenting what Guth is saying about this issue, it's that you take what he's saying and use that to claim that "science" agrees with him to the point where it leans that way. That's just not true.

So it's not settled, but his two reasons are enough for you to go around claiming that all of science leans one way over the other? This is the main beef I have with what you've said.

looooooooooooooooool. I used to be a Christian, and now I'm an atheist. Don't know how much more of a position change one can expect to achieve or witness.

Jib, I like how you countered my lack of belief with a strawman, and then ignored me when I pointed it out.

I don't expect you to change your beliefs or anything, but can you blame me for not believing a god created the universe when nobody presents me with a reason to?

Me: I don't know why people would think the universe having a beginning suggests a god created it.
Jib: *strawman*
Me: That was a strawman Jib.
Jib: ...........

I asked a question. Where is your evidence that the universe can create itself? If we are talking about creation ex nihilo, then in order for me to believe in the highly unlikely even that the universe brought itself into existence I want evidence. Please present yours.

No one ever understands idk....

there's not going to be any evidence for this, because its an event that is unobservable. but what we can do is offer explanations as to how a universe could come about on its own, without the need for a divine, super-creature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

So I should accept just-so stories over the idea of a creator, why?

No, you shouldn't accept either and keep an opened mind to both.