-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So how would you explain what started time?
For at least the third or fourth time now... I don't.
Why is this so difficult? Do you not understand that sometimes the best (and correct) answer is "I don't know"?
you say it is logically incoherent to assume that something cause time to exist.
Yes it is logically incoherent. That's not an opinion.
The only way around this is to presume some sort of time outside of time, but all that does is kick the can further backward, it doesn't solve the actual problem.
Again, I say something can't come from nothing.
When you say something can't come from nothing, what are you calling nothing? To put it another way, whatever nothing is, is there any possible intersection between it and reality?
If there is no possible intersection then all you're doing is providing a definition (nothing is that from which something cannot come). If that's the case then this is nothing more than a tautology, not an argument.
If nothing could have some possible intersection with reality then you are talking about something, and you would therefore need to be able to experiment somehow on it in order to claim what it can or cannot produce.
You even said before," Logically speaking, something could conceivably exist outside of the laws of physics."So, is it possible that there is a being that is able to exist outside of time?
Outside of our particular phenomenon of time, it's logically possible. Logically possible and physically possible are two different things. As far as we know, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. That's a law of the universe that we discovered, but we can very easily conceive of something moving faster, so it doesn't violate logic.
So when we ask if something is possible we need to clarify which definition we are working with.
Let me rephrase my argument. He exists out of time, as we know it.
Then you couldn't possibly know anything about it, hence this entire thing is just made up. That's the opposite of proof.
But you did bring it up as an argument. And when you use that argument, that you can't prove, to counter my argument that I can't prove, that is called being a hypocrite.
Your lack of understanding does translate to me being a hypocrite.
Nothing about my argument claims to have determined where the singularity came from. My claim, which is simply an acceptance of the scientific findings, is that the universe came out of the singularity.
You do not need to know where the cow came from to conclude that the ground beef you ate made you sick.
And as far as the argument I actually presented, yes there is proof of this, that's why the scientific community accepts it. Your claim does not have any proof, there is no hypocrisy on my part. The only hypocrisy here is your rule only your belief can be asserted without explanation.
The difference between science/Atheism and Christianity, is that we have an explanation for our existence.
Anyone can have an explanation if we accept the idea that explanations can just be made up. The difference between christians and atheists is that atheists do not accept made up definitions.
But when we get to that point where we have no further, scientific evidence, we turn to our Lord and Savior, and have faith in him.
Science is a method for learning about and understanding reality. Its limits are the limitations of human beings to attain knowledge of it.
When you say "the point where we have no further scientific evidence", you're simply saying the point in which there is no further evidence. If there is no further evidence then by definition you cannot prove what you are asserting.
You also demonstrate that you are engaging in circular logic. You can't appeal to God to prove God exists.
