Well, if we cannot even agree on what we are talking about, then what is the point?

I can only assume you are not talking about the laws of physics, you are talking about what the laws of physics model. Nobody knows what that is, or even if it is.

Obviously you don't know what needs to exist for the universe to come out of nothing (it seems like a rather paradoxal statement), or for that matter...if it is at all related to the laws of physics and what they might model.

just sorta seems more like an SMP thread at this point. nbd.

wat?

Why would that need to be the case?

And if laws of physics existed prior to the universe then why must the universe have come from nothing? The whole post hinges on this statement... I don't know if that's what you're saying the cosmologists believe, or if you're saying that's what you believe but either way it's not substantiated.

Also, have you noticed leading scientists and cosmologists don't share most of your views? Instead of posting about that, you search long and hard for one unsubstantiated concept that you can manipulate and mold into kind of sort of maybe if it were granted helping you. Typical jib.

I don't think this follows. They can't be matter, space and time (since that's what they claim was created) but they didnt express a view on whether the laws of physics were created along with all that physical stuff. If they were co-created, they can be said to be a part of this natural world unless you limit 'natural world' to be only matter, space and time which kind of begs the question.
I don't think so. Even if we grant the existence of matter 'inside' a black hole, we can't scientifically test the properties of that matter from here.
I think you have to take them (like the laws of logic) as brute facts. This is assuming that our theories correspond in some sense with something real - my view, but possibly not shared widely by cosmologists.
Er this comes up a fair bit here. You could just not believe in either. Maybe there's another explanation we havent thought of.
Not if there is insufficient evidence - I honestly think these last two points are a real stretch. Cosmologists are puzzled by the 'source' of the laws of physics. Therefore we have to pick a side and declare whether we think God exists or not?

grunch: There is no such thing as the laws of physics

grunch: tell that to Alan Guth the "inventor" of the inflationary model. I am sure he would love for you to tell him why he is wrong.

...

lololololololol

I cannot believe that this whole thread has turned into the atheists here believing they know more than leading cosmologists. Very odd turn of events. I guess this thread should never have been posted here, but should have just gone to SMP

No leading cosmologist claims anything about this stuff with any kind of certainty afaik.

I see that you opted to not reply to me

........do you know what grunch means?

you are a walking cartoon

No one said anything about absolute certainty. Did you watch the Guth video? Or how about just reading the quote that I posted? Or did you just assume you were right to start?

lol, I have to say that I thought I did, I just looked it up and I did not.

Also, no I am not going to bother to respond to you, I don't think I even read your other post as is the case with this one I just assume they are full of insults and do not necessitate any form of response. If you would like to apologize and have a serious conversation I will respond.

Your analysis is wrong. This thread is about we knowing more about basic method than you.

Cosmological knowledge need not apply.

Would I like to apologize for you not knowing what grunch means and embarrassing yourself. Let me see....no, I would not like to apologize for you not knowing about what you talk about.

I am simply repeating what leading cosmologists have said. So if you have a beef, it is with them, not me. Watch the video and tell me why Guth is wrong, or tell me why I have misinterpreted what Guth is say. Or just respond to the quote that I posted and explain to me why I should believe you over Guth, or once again tell me how I have misinterpreted what Guth has said. It's that simple.

I am more than happy to admit that I am wrong if I have misunderstood something.

Do you make it a habit to decide what you believe about a given topic and then do your research later? Can you see why the majority of atheists on here might think that something other than evidence or sound reasoning has lead you to god? Such as your personal pretensions and aspirations?

Ok, so I posted a thread in SMP to try and settle this, the thread can be viewed here

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...hysics-845849/

Since you prettied up your own statements, misstated those of others and made leading poll choices, I wrote my opinion.

I'm also out of this trainwreck.

Bull****. Now the backpeddling begins.

Downloading stuff at the moment so I haven't watched the videos. I'm a bit curious, though - how does 'nothing' + 'pre-existing laws' = 'nothing'? Is there some technical, cosmological definition of 'nothing' that allows for that? Or are we just importing a dualist perspective and talking about the origin of the physical universe?

My guess is Jib didn't even notice that he claimed the cosmologists believe in creation from "nothing" while at the same time saying that they believe creation required preexisting laws.