Creation from nothing, and then ...

[Mattsterpiece]

One, here is a statement from Linde:

"Of an infinite number of bubbles, Linde says, there could be 10500 different varieties."

Can be found under the section of Goldilocks bubbles.

Moreover, you completely disregarded what I said in response to Linde's model.

[Anon]

BTW creation did not arise from nothing; it arose from the Logos (the wisdom, logic, and word) of God, since the Father created it through the Logos Himself. This isn't meant to imply that creation is equal to God's foreknowing of it, but that it arose materialistically from the epistemological foreknowing; otherwise, God would have created randomly.

[shunyadragon]

One, here is a statement from Linde:

"Of an infinite number of bubbles, Linde says, there could be 10500 different varieties."

Can be found under the section of Goldilocks bubbles.

Moreover, you completely disregarded what I said in response to Linde's model.

You have disregarded completely the substance of my argument.

Modern cosmologies, regardless of any theoretical limit on the number of universes, does not consider the nature of existence as necessarily finite. In fact, most cosmologists consider it most like infinite, like Linde. I will provide more.


By the way, it would be illogical to have an infinite number of bubbles in a finite existence with a limited numbe of universe.

[Mattsterpiece]

Do you even try to process what someone is saying when you respond? Seriously?

First off, you take everything that Linde says to heart, on the basis that it suits what you believe. However, you disregard his acceptance of the limited variation. You disregard the philosophical arguments against an actual infinite on the grounds that some Cosmologists think up models involving infinity. That would be like me arguing that Evolution isn't necessarily true because there are some modern Biologists who don't believe it is possible.

Moreover, you have completely disregarded the disproof of Linde's bubble model of the universe, and moved on to an argument that has has also been invalidated by science. Bravo!

[shunyadragon]

Do you even try to process what someone is saying when you respond? Seriously?

First off, you take everything that Linde says to heart, on the basis that it suits what you believe.

I do not take everything Linde says at heart. You are the first to bring up Linde. By the way, can you come up with any quote from Linde that he supports a finite existence in any way?

However, you disregard his acceptance of the limited variation.

Okay come up with cosmologists that believe in finite existence.

You disregard the philosophical arguments against an actual infinite on the grounds that some Cosmologists think up models involving infinity.

This is a disparaging remark concerning Cosmologists. They do not think up things. I would have to see some serious cosmologists that postulate a finite existence, before I would seriously consider it..

That would be like me arguing that Evolution isn't necessarily true because there are some modern Biologists who don't believe it is possible.

No comparison. This is a red herring.

Moreover, you have completely disregarded the disproof of Linde's bubble model of the universe, and moved on to an argument that has has also been invalidated by science. Bravo!

You will have to do better than this remark. You need to cite source in context for support.

[Mattsterpiece]

By the way, can you come up with any quote from Linde that he supports a finite existence in any way?

You had me quote someone to support the limited variation acceptance. Not only did I do this, I provided reference to Linde concurring with the scientific invalidation of the model that you had supported.

There is no need for me to provide anything from Linde showing that he admits to finite existence. This is entirely irrelevant. The point is, the disproofs you are using against the philosophical disproofs of an actual infinite are based on the assumption that the hypothetical models that you are throwing around are fact, which is, in itself, based on assuming the philosophical arguments are false. This is pretty circular.

Okay come up with cosmologists that believe in finite existence.

Do you not see the missteps in logic here?

You can't prove that there is an infinity with an appeal to authority. As a positive assertion of enormous speculation, the burden of proof is on you.

This is a disparaging remark concerning Cosmologists. They do not think up things. I would have to see some serious cosmologists that postulate a finite existence, before I would seriously consider it..

How dense can you possible be? I hadn't said that Cosmology is a science that speculates. I'm saying that the Cosmologically-related idea of an infinite matrix (as far as I know, was simply made up by you) is merely speculation. An actual infinite is a positive assertion that some Cosmologists believe in, but that is not grounds for believing in it.

I have given you objections to models involving the multiverse, showing how they have been scientifically invalidated, and you have ignored this.

No comparison. This is a red herring.

Ugh...where is this getting me. This will be my last post, as I was recommended by a friend not to waste my time with you anyway.

You will have to do better than this remark. You need to cite source in context for support.

Try the other forum that I had linked to earlier, silly. I provide the source there.

[shunyadragon]

Do you not see the missteps in logic here?

Yes, your missteps and foolishness.

You can't prove that there is an infinity with an appeal to authority. As a positive assertion of enormous speculation, the burden of proof is on you.

Again your lack of knowledge and failure to read my posts is making a fool of yor self.

I never said there was any proof of anything, and you are again misusing the concept of proof in science.

Ugh...where is this getting me.

Swimming in your own manure.